What is Digg?125 Comments
- DJDonkeypunch, on 10/11/2007, -2/+114This guy spent the night drinking, was speeding, talking on a cell-phone so of course his death is somebody else's fault!
The guy doing the sueing is obviously a piece of trash and deserves to be punched in the throat.
Of course, now that I say this, I'll probably be sued next. - rmccarley, on 10/11/2007, -1/+40Why aren't they sueing the person on the other end of the cell phone for "involentary distractions" at the time of the crash?
Maybe they'll sue the Digg and the Diggers for casting logic and reason at them... - docbells, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36Sir - Your son is a freaking IDIOT - You should sue yourself for producing such a moron.
This makes me so angry I want to punch someone. - Skitzzo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+33why stop there? Why not the state of Missouri for making their roads so damned hard to drive drunk on? Maybe the automakers for not having developed a drunk proof guidance system. Unreal and yet, totally believable.
- Skitzzo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+31Like the story says, it could just be the family acting out of blind pain, or whatever or maybe they got really bad legal advice from some slime-ball lawyer, but in the end, you're right. There was a video of the crash released locally (not sure if it got play nationally or not) and you see more than a couple of cars moving over to avoid the tow truck... all except the drunk guy on his cell phone.
- jrothra, on 10/11/2007, -3/+31But remember, if we follow the pattern of this family, your mistakes are the fault of not you, but the following:
- Parents - they raised you
- Lineage - genetics caused this
- Teachers - they taught you
- Auto makers - they make vehicles that produce pollutants that you breathe in that contaminate your brain and make you this way
- Cows - the UN says they produce 20 times more global warming than CO2 (see here also: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/12/72285)
- Oxygen - you breathe it, so it must contribute somehow
- All levels of government - they didn't do enough
- Conservatives - liberals say they are to blame for everything, so I'm sure there's some blame here for them
- Liberals - conservatives say they are to blame for everything, so the same applies here
- The planet Mars - its close orbit impacted Earth's gravity so as to alter how your brain/body works
- NASA - for not moving Mars
- George Bush - why not, he's being blamed for everything else anyway
- George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, all the founding fathers - they started this nation that allowed you the freedom to do what you did...
Shall I go on? :D - jrothra, on 10/11/2007, -1/+28What happened to personal responsibility? We're no longer accountable for anything we do. We do something stupid that we know is wrong... and we're the victim of someone else. People need to stop pointing fingers at others and saying, "I was wrong... let me correct that."
- Ajajadude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+26Just remember, boys and girls, when in doubt, it's always someone else's fault.
Suing someone because they were spun out resulting in their car dying on the road? This jackass and his family would sue God if they could. - Cdog923, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18It's about time we hold individuals responsible for their own actions...or is that too much work for you?
- SeanMoney, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Un-*****-believable! I Love this quote from the captain dip-***** Dad
"including any legal actions necessary against those who contributed to the untimely and unnecessary death."
How bout your dumb ass son who was offered a cab and essentially laughed at the bartender, then they try and blame the tow truck driver he ran into! Wow this has me ***** steamed. - NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15"get plastered and drive into the Hancocks' living room."
Make sure you sue them after you do.
-jcr - dohidied, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16I've got half a mind to get plastered and drive into the Hancocks' living room.
- AmishRefugee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I felt sorry for the family and all of the cardinals fans when he died... until we found out why. ***** Josh Hancock and ***** his family, are they gonna sue his dealer too? What about the St. Louis police for not pulling him over and making him put on his seatbelt? (which is a law here in STL) Can they sue Highway 40 for not preventing him from hitting someone and killing himself and THANK GOD no one else?
- stoneymason, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11The suit shows that the apple does not fall far from the tree. Josh Hancock showed fantastically bad judgement by having weed in his car, driving and talking on the phone while drunk, and of course speeding. The family's assertion (I understand it's the father driving this bus) that this was everyone else's fault and is willing to sue over it simply shows that Josh got his stupid genes from his father. Hard to make good choices when you're genetically predisposed to stupidity.
With that, if anyone should be sued, it's the box-of-rocks father, for failing so miserably at instilling good judgement in his son. Sounds like a class action suit, with every person in St. Louis as a plaintiff, because Hancock could've killed any one of them. I do hope that the judge throws out this current suit and forces Box-of-Rocks Sr. to pay every defendant for their legal fees, then take out a full page ad in the biggest paper of that city apologizing for bad moves of his son and the compounding of that badness by the father, praying for forgiveness. - NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9The right thing to do now, is for the victims of this drunk driver to sue his estate, leaving not one red cent for this *****'s greedy family.
-jcr - idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8We could all do it, and then file a class-action.
- Skitzzo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8@gamebittk, uh... suing the people your drunk driving son crashed into? that's a jackass. apparently it's genetic
- heynow21, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8If i were the stalled driver I'd countersue for attempted manslaughter and emotional distress.
- kahlessreborn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Instead I say the judge award the family a Darwin Award.
http://www.darwinawards.com/ - zclip, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Wow. I'm from Saint Louis and I love the cards but someone should talk to the family and tell them to chill the ***** out. The guy ***** up BIG TIME and they should be apologizing to the community for he big mistake he made (biggest one of his life in fact). This is such a disgrace.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7If anything the truck driver should sue them for emotional distress.
- Monk22, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@Felbie
personally im sick and tired of people blaming the bars and everyone else. you know what happens when you put liqour in your mouth. your gonna get drunk. its your responsibility to take care of yourself. - nickstl77, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I live just outside of Saint Louis in Pacific, MO, and actually drove past the tow truck that Hancock ran into about 4-5 minutes before the accident. I wasn't drunk, nor on my cell phone, or speeding (had my 4 month old daughter in the back seat at the time). The tow truck was easily visible for a good 30 seconds before you came up to it. Traffic was slowing down as we passed, there was a small car that had the front right hand side of it smashed into the median and it was smoking. I found out later it had apparently been cut-off and forced into the median, and the car was disabled. The tow truck had its big orange flashing lights on and the small car had his hazards on. Not to mention, the area they were parked in was already marked as a construction area and had SLOW DOWN signs posted all over it, as workers have been working there most weeknights the last several months.
To blame either of them is absoultely insane.
It was a tragic accident caused by multple poor decisions by Josh Hancock that night.. His family is now going to drag his name through the mud in an attempt to win some compensation? I hope they realize when this case goes to court (if it makes it that far), the defense attorneys are going to pry and dig into ever facet of Josh Hancocks life, drug habits, and irresponsibility. When they get done with it, he'll end up looking like trash and his name will be forever tarnished in St. Louis.
What his family is doing is a disgrace. - Skitzzo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7The difference is when I screw, up my family members are the first ones to tell me how I screwed up. They don't blame others for my dumbass.
- mmacmu1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I don't necessarily believe all of the case will be thrown out. Because...
there are a number of things that the tow driver or motorist could be liable for:
-Not using emergency blinkers
-Improperly pulled over in a non-emergency lane
-Tow truck not providing roadside reflectors
-Negligence in maintaining the vehicle
-Etc
Its things like this that lawyers look for. I know YOU probably don't agree with it, and neither do I, but in our system of law it may be possible for the case to continue as such. The fact that he was drunk may be seen as irrelevant in the case should the motorist or tow driver have violated some law.
The problem with these bloggers is that they give absolutely no insight into what the argument itself is. This is the reason we have trials. Juries don't just receive two positions and decide without hearing anything.
I think we need more information. - Skitzzo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Reason #1 is jealousy right? 1908 vs. 2006 hmmm...
- rodeo40, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6WAH...our meal-ticket died and now we wanna get paid!
- AcePup, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Actual story: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/B30B1CD42616DCDC862572E5005F04FC?OpenDocument
- Elranzer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Personal responsibility? It went out the window, right around the time when people thought they had the right to not get offended.
- merphle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Perhaps they should sue themselves for giving birth to the guy.
- jrothra, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Ask most adults if they should drive when drunk. They say no. When someone does something stupid, it's somebody else's fault? So, if you to a nice restaurant, oder too much food and end up sick, is it the restuarant's fault you're sick because they served you too much? Is it the convenience store's fault because they let you buy the super-mega 60 oz. Dr. Pepper that helped you get fat because they didn't limit how much you buy? Someplace, somewhere, the one drinking, buying, eating, etc. has to take responsibility. If you go to a bar knowing you are going to drink, have the brains before hand to have a designated driver. If you're too stupid to think clearly when sober, don't blame others for your own stupidity.
- magnusdopus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The father is from Mississippi. The home of ridiculous tort. Example....
The news program “60 Minutes” devoted a program to explaining why Mississippi’s 22nd judicial circuit is a favorite place for plaintiffs’ lawyers to flock from all over the nation. After the airing of the program, Media General Operations (which owns the local CBS affiliate), the 60 Minutes’ producers and several individuals who commented in the program found themselves named as defendants in a $6.4 billion defamation lawsuit—in Jefferson County. - rasterbator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4According to FoxSports Radio (last night):
Hancock was in two accidents the week PRIOR to the one that took his life. He has a history of drinking too much (based on other players who have said so in the past). According to one account, Hancock's father is suing the bar/restaurant, but he reportedly left that establishment at 12:00 p.m., and went to another bar until closing (3 a.m. in St. Louis!). No mention of the other bar. The Tow Truck company could also sue the restaurant. Based on the law, the restaurant is required to 1) I.D. customers, and 2) they are responsible to cut off someone who has had too much to drink (take keys, call a cab, etc. are usually part of the procedure).
Of course the accident chasing lawyer who filed the suit is NOT suing MLB or St. Louis Cardinals organization because they have lawyers that could defend themselves!
It is too bad he died, but Hancock was accountable for his actions. He was an extremely heavy drinker and — unless he never spent time with his parents — his Dad knows that. And since alcoholism is genetic, his Dad has probably been on the wrong side of the breathalizer a few too many times in his life, but has been lucky. - rmccarley, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5That is a statute in most states so the law is already there but the enforcement gets tricky.
- tomis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Someone just get the dad drunk, then let him drive home by himself, the rest will take care of its self. Evolution in action.
- Fury1984, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@dracostimpy
"GRRRRRR... You win this round, Skitzzo, but I'll be back here in October to poop on you!"
From your couch? Because surely you won't have a reason to go to Wrigley Field come October.
Completely
Useless
By
September - Skitzzo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3to be fair, he wasn't under the influence of drugs, he just had them in the car. (Do I really need a sarcasm tag?)
- brufleth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@NSResponder
Exactly. The current lawsuit is an attempt for them to acquire funds to sustain their current quality of living. Sorry but when your he decided drinking and driving was A-okay he screwed you out of a life of sitting around doing nothing. - bigfkncee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3footage of the crash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPmSjtQOv9A
warning:terrible quality - nickstl77, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3What do you suggest the bar owner do? Chain him to a barstool and call the cops? They have no right to detain someone against their will, drunk or not. They offered him a cab ride, he declined and left. They fulfilled their obligation.
- eddiea23, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4We can only hope that there was some sarcasm intended in that statement... Getting too drunk to act responsibly is nobody's fault but the person who is voluntarily consuming the alcohol. If you are the type of person who can't make rational decisions after a few drinks, you shouldn't be drinking in the first place. At some point, the guy made a conscious decision to start consuming alcohol that evening. From that moment on, he was solely responsible for the outcome of that decision.
On the other hand, just because he was over the legal limit and involved in a fatal accident does not automatically make the accident his fault... but the "I was to drunk to know any better, so it must be someone else's fault" defense is just asinine. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Yeah! And ***** that ***** first ancestral bacterium. ***** made me fall out of the tree and break my damn arm.
- theillest1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They should also sue his cell phone service provider, the cell phone manufacturer, the car manufacturer, the brewery or distillery that made the alcohol that he drank, and the place from which the car was rented.
- DubbedOver, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's not your fault they did something stupid and you ended up being angry at them.
- CyberSmackdown, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Tigers fan?
- chemicalrxn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The driver of the car being towed is also being sued. So is the tow truck company.
Hancock had a .157 blood alcohol level. That's almost twice the legal limit. Everything about the lawsuit is infuriating and embarrassing to Saint Louisans. - buryyourhead, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2dracostimpy you're a ***** idiot. 1. i work in downtown stl and you have absolutely no ***** clue what you are talking about. 2. the cubs ***** suck 3. last time i checked this 3rd world city still manages to sell out every single ***** cards game even though everyone is stuck using a horse and carriage.......oh ***** my 28.8k is going ou....... ........... ........ ... .. .
- lordwow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They should sue the pitching coach.
He wouldn't have had to drink so much if he was good. - BobOki, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Our country needs a law that makes bogus lawsuits a criminal offense. If you bring a stupid lawsuit, the courts/govt/person being sued, should be able to counter sue or at least have the case investigated, and if found faulty/negligent/bogus/retarded the original plaintiff should be charged a RIDICULOUS amount of money and possible jail time.
- herting, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2So, no one should be allowed to get drunk in a bar then? I get drunk every now and then, at least to the point where if I were to drive I could be arrested for having done so but on those occasions I choose not to drive home. If you make it so the bars don't allow anyone to get enough alcohol in their system to exceed .08 BAC you will find that a lot of bars start closing down. It should be no one's responsibility to ensure that I don't get drunk and drive besides myself.
I work as a bartender every now and then and the bar I work for is small enough that I know about how many drinks everyone has had and if someone where to announce to me that they are going home, if they are drunk I will ask them how they are getting home and will sort a cab for them if they need, but in large bars there is no way anyone can keep track of how many drinks everyone has had, nor can they verify how people are getting home. -
Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is