Hancock's Dad Sues Restaurant - Huh?

by Schwa on May 24, 2007 5:25 PM CDT Comment 72 comments

Per ESPN, Josh Hancock's Dad is filing suit against the restaurant he was drinking at before his fatal crash. What really shocked me is that not only are they filing suit against the restaurant, but also against the towing company, the tow truck driver, AND the driver who's car was stuck. From my point of view, this is absurd. Hancock was a grown man capable of making his own decisions. He was driving drunk, talking on his cell phone and speeding when he hit the tow truck. His dad should spend time promoting the importance of DD's and not drinking and driving instead of taking out his sadness and frustration on other people. I especially hate how the driver of the car that was getting towed was named as a defendant - his car spun out after he was cut off. I hope this never actually comes to fruition.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 72 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The restaraunt they may

get something from. I'm not sure what Missouri's "Responsible Vendor" Laws look like, but if their anything like Florida's they're stringent and extremely unforgiving. Whether they can prove it was the restaraunt's doing in so far that there was an excess amount served to him remains to be seen.

Wasn't there speculation about alchohol given in the clubhouse? That could very well be a determining factor.

Faith Plus One - Contributing Editor -http://www.inaleagueofherown.com

by Faith plus 1 on May 24, 2007 5:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

re: Alcohol in the clubhouse

That's a good point. The St. Louis Cardinals are noticably absent from the lawsuit. They would seem to be more negligent than the tow truck company or the driver of the Prism. Not to say that I think any of them are negligent. My heart goes out to the Hancock family, but rather than blame others for Josh's death, they would do well to come to terms with the fact that Josh made a series of really bad decisions that ended in the sudden loss of his life.

by Rev Gunia on May 24, 2007 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The article...

mentioned the absence of the Cardinals from the list of defendants, and Hancock's dad made it seem like because the team has been so thoughtful and helpful since his death he would leave them off. But I agree, I think the Cardinals should be included here if he's going to list all sorts of other people. I still maintain this whole law suit is in horrible taste and with bad intentions - as you said, Hancock made some very bad decisions, and unfortunately it cost him in the gravest way. Such a sad story.

2007 Badger Football - 1-0 every week...

by Schwa on May 24, 2007 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The restaurant part

doesn't surprise me at all but the towing company etc. is just ridiculous.

"David Aardsma has ice water in his veins." BlueMike 5/17/07

by sue369 on May 24, 2007 5:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Well...

... I'd guess the owner of the Prism and the tow truck company, along with the tow truck driver, will be dismissed as defendants. Curious that they didn't go after the driver of the car that allegedly spun out the Prism, unless they don't know who that is. Unfortuantely, it's pretty standard practice to name this many defendants.

As for the restaurant, since I don't know Missouri law, it's hard to say. They might have something on their books that indemnifies restaurants and bars to a degree, or not. I'd be interested to kow if there was any marijuana in his system. At some point, of course, Hancock has to be held responsible for his own actions regardless of who did what around him.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on May 24, 2007 5:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I would guess that the insurance companies

for the tow truck company and the owner of the Prism will pay Hancock's father a nuisance value settlement to get out of the case, just as he intended. This suit disgusts me, especially with respect to suing the people Hancock hit.

by dfrancon on May 25, 2007 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unfortunately...

... these people are all going to have to hire lawyers, now. This will be an out of pocket expense. Again, I think Dean Hancock grossly overreached here and both the tow truck driver and the Prism driver (if he was still on site) have reason to counter sue. Aside from any damage is the fact that they had to witness Hancock more or less decapitate himself due to his reckless behavior. It would have been unsavory to file suit against the estate of a dead man but, as I said earlier, Dean Hancock opened that door.

DmL

by dmlichte on May 25, 2007 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes. This is what they are after...

...this is common place...If you happen to have a decent job and some insurance then you are going to be sued even if you were a victim...I am not going to hammer the dad because he just lost his son...hopefully sometime down the road the dad will do something to promote public service efforts against drunk driving, maybe even something within MLB and the players. I suspect that the probably that other MLB players have driven drunk after games = 1. This is where he could actually do some good. Did Oakland ban alcohol from the clubhouse after an incident? Who was that manager who was so upset about that? I forgot that idiot's name already.

by DudeVf11 on May 26, 2007 12:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

According to the story

The bar offered him a cab, but he refused. He was also not wearing a seatbelt, talking on his cell phone, and possibly high (weed was found in his car, but I never heard if he actually was high). I don't know Missouri law, but Hancock's dad will have a hard time proving that was (the bar) what actually caused the crash.

Guzman!

by roach on May 24, 2007 6:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Disagree 100%

The restaurant acknowledged that he was incapacitated but did nothing about it. The bartender/manager clearly felt that Hancock was incapacitated, yet she allowed this incapacitated person in this incapacitated state depart the restaurant where they helped overserve him. I'm not sure how one judges someone else to be incapacitated yet they are allowed to depart and make decisions that can impact the safety of others.

Missouri does have a dram shop law, which will protect Mike Shannon's restaurant. They likely will take a hit and should.

As for the tow truck and others being sued, IMO that's a gross midjudgement on Hancock's part. If I'm the tow truck driver I file a countersuit, something that would have certainly appeared unsavory before this law suit. You don't sue the estate of a dead person, but Hancock's dad opened up that door.

DmL

by dmlichte on May 24, 2007 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

If you're going to indict Shannon's restaurant, go ahead and reinstate prohibition or extremely stringent drinking laws, because you are placing way too much of the onus on the provider and not enough on the consumer. One good sized martini or mixed drink is enough to put most people over the legal limit; two are enough to get someone to .16, if there's enough liquor involved. How do you expect a bar/restaurant to know how much a person has consumed in a certain time? They can't, and it's ridiculous to assume that someone can stay in business while babysitting every person drinking in their establishment.

In this specific case, Hancock refused a cab and chose to drive. What would you suggest the staff at Shannon's should have done? Hancock was a very big man, and I doubt they could have restrained him. He wanted to leave, and there was nothing they could have done about it, short of shooting out his tires.

On the macro side of this issue, we as a society need to do a better job of educating people about the dangers of alcohol consumption, especially drinking and driving. I believe it should that the federal government should mandate that all businesses that serve alcoholic beverages on-site be required to have a calibrated breathalyzer and that all individuals determine what their BAC is prior to departing. Bars are extremely difficult to create mandatory drink standards for, so using terminology like '3 drinks in an hour' to know if you're over the legal limit is completely useless when some drinks have 2oz of alcohol and others have 12-16oz. All 'drinks' are not created equal: compare the way you feel after a stawberry margarita to a long island ice tea. Alcohol related deaths are estimated at 100K-200K every year, and Josh Hancock is just a small fraction of this statistic. He may have been the one to jump behind the wheel, but our society played a role in his demise - from the company his home stadium was named after to the television shows that make getting wasted seem like such a blast (martinis gained a huge return to respectability after 'Sex in the City' debuted). I think the lawsuit is ridiculous, but the least we can do is to do our best to reduce the Josh Hancock's in this world.

by TMOX on May 24, 2007 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We are all forgetting the fact

that even though he was drunk he was also without a seatbelt, talking on a cellphone, and possibly high.

Guzman!

by roach on May 24, 2007 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are...

... completely and totally missing the point. The manager at Shannon's saw that Hancock was incapacitated. Yup, there are plenty of people who are over the legal limit but seem fine. Hancock wasn't one of them. The manager saw that he was incapable of driving. Had she not noticed that he was drunk thats once thing, but she did and did not act. There is a degree of responsibility on the restaurant because they noted his level of incapacity and did not act sufficiently. I'm not handing out levels of responsibility here, but Shannon's restaurant certainly deserved some.

I would have suggested that the manager at Shannon's call the police or demand that he give his keys to them. And this is why dram shop laws exist. There is a severe limit to the liability of bar owners, but there is some. Shannon's, acknowledging that Hancock was incapacitated but failing to act deserve some blame. Had your wife, son, mother or father been killed by Hancock that night, I assure you that you'd feel that the folks at Shannons did not do enough.

A lawyer will have no problem making their case in this matter.

DmL

by dmlichte on May 24, 2007 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait a minute

They are not suing the restaurant for letting him drive, but for serving him after he was drunk. Your argument seems to be that they should have stopped him from driving. How do you think they were going to get the keys from a 6'3" 220 lb guy who had already refused a cab ride? 0.15 is not so drunk that they would have refused him any more drinks. No one is to blame here except Josh Hancock.

by Aaron on May 24, 2007 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

They're not suing for letting him drive, but for serving him. But their case should inclue the fact that the manager saw that there was some level of incapacitation that prevented him from being capable of driving. This is the key, that the manager noted the incapacitation. This caused her to believe that he shouldn't be driving. Shouldn't this have tipped them off that he needed to be cut off?

This is a difficult issue to consider when its the family of the offender suing. So I'll ask people to look at this from a different standpoint. Had some innocent bystander been killed by Hancock, would that family have the right to sue a restaurant who noted his incapacitation?

DmL

by dmlichte on May 24, 2007 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If it were one of my friends or family members

...killed by a drunk driver, of course I'd be upset at the bar if they were overserving him. But my being upset does not necessarily mean that they are legally responsible for the death. If (for some reason or another) I thought a lawsuit was in order, the drunk driver would be the one file suit against.

Sometimes bad things happen. Sometimes trying to assign blame makes them worse things. I think this is one of those times.

by Rev Gunia on May 24, 2007 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Consider this

If your family member was killed by a drunk driver who a bar knowingly overserved, you don't believe the bar deserves any responsibility? I'm not saying that the bar takes more or less blame, I'm just saying they play a part in this whole deal. We know people see their faculties diminish as they consume alcohol. Part of this is their abilities to make appropriate decisions. So isn't it incumbant upon the bar to play some type of role?

DmL

by dmlichte on May 24, 2007 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

I think it's important to make a distinction between the legal concept of strict liability, which places the onus on the restaurant, and general concept of personal responsibility.

We've become far too much a society that institutionalizes responsibility and assigns blame to those who can afford it rather than holding adults responsible for their choices.

If a family member of mine was killed by a drunk driver, I'd sue the driver (or his estate). He's the one responsible for the death. I suppose if it was determined that the bar held a gun to his head and forced him to drink, I'd sue the bar, too, but it's unrealistic and unfair to ask servers to bear the responsibility of their customers' decisions, especially since the vast majority of the time it's not clear just how impaired they might be.

Our society worships recreational drugs, especially alcohol. Bars exist for one reason - to take a drug to modify one's reality, and because the desire to do so is very great. Blaming them for what happens afterward is bassackwards.

It's time to stop coddling drug users whose behavior injures others. When Tony LaRussa was found asleep at the wheel, he should have been thrown in jail. The towing company should sue Hancock's estate for damage to the truck.

Unfortunately, it's cheaper and easier to conclude that anyone who blows .08 is incapable of driving, to sue a business because they have to carry insurance to get the liquor license, and to avoid putting the focus where it belongs - on the behavior of the adult in question.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 25, 2007 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

...when you point out the societal hypocracy that exits as it relates to alcohol. On the one hand, there are so many "don't drink and drive," "know your limits," "drink responsibly," ad campaigns that it can make your head spin. In all Illinois high schools, sophomores are required to take a class in Health that features a unit on alcohol abuse. I even remember a "self-test" to see if you're an alcoholic featuring questions like, "have you ever consumed more than two drinks in a sitting?" So we've instiutionalized a fear of overconsumption.

On the other hand, look at the prominance of alcohol in society. Ads, billboards, rooftops, television commercials, product placement, jokes on sitcoms, etc. all revolve around consumption (or overconsumption). Many have pointed out Busch stadium; many have pointed out the Milwaukee Brewers and Miller Park. We all recognize the prominance of beer vendors at all major sporting events. So, although we sternly warn against the dangers of alcohol, we wink at one another, knowing that we all silently agree that very few will actually heed these warnings.

My solution? I don't have one. However, recognizing this problem does at least begin to address it.

by Rev Gunia on May 25, 2007 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jed Taylor

said it better than I could. I especially appreciate his distinction between moral liability and legal liability.

Nevertheless, I'll add my two cents. Shannon's (and other bar/restaurants) exist to provide the public with a service: to provide for them food and beverages (alcoholic and non-alcoholic) for a fee. They don't hide this fact, they openly advertise it. Hancock knew it and gave that company his business. He held up his end of the bargain by paying Shannon's, Shannon's held up their end of the bargain by providing what Hancock paid for.

As far as I can tell, Shannon's didn't overstep their arrangement by encouraging Hancock to consume more than he felt comfortable drinking. They never said something like, "Hey, Josh, one more for the road." They never comped him free drinks. They never tried to pressure him into overconsumption. If they would have done these things, they should hold a degree of responsibility. But Hancock made these choices on his own.

I would even go so far as to say that Shannon's went beyond what was expected of them by observing Hancock's state, determining that it was not safe for him to drive, and offering to call him a taxi. If they would've encouaged him to drive, ("Josh, you seem fine to me. You don't need a cab. Go ahead and take the wheel."), they would hold a degree of responsibility. But again, Hancock made decisions that ended in his death.

If it's my family member that is in Hancock's shoes and ends up dying, of course I'd feel some pretty strong emotions. If it's my family member that's killed by a drunk driver, of course I'd be feeling some pretty strong emotions. But the existance of these strong emotions doesn't mean that I can go around blaming everyone and everything. I may want to, but just because I say they're at fault, it doesn't mean that they're necessarily at fault.

by Rev Gunia on May 25, 2007 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed...

with Jed and Rev. The restaurant is not the insurer of Hancock's safety. DML, just because they serve him to a point where they didn't want to serve him anymore doesn't mean the onus is on them to provide transportation from their bar to the next bar. It's not their duty, it was Hancock's.

"Not true at all. Vaseline is manufactured right here in the United States." - Don Sutton, about the rumors that he uses a foreign substance on the ball

by Orangeman94 on May 25, 2007 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Missouri law does make a distinction

between a drunk and the victim of a drunk.

Missouri Revised Statutes

537.053.

Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered personal injury or death against any person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises when it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the seller knew or should have known that intoxicating liquor was served to a person under the age of twenty-one years or knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person.
For purposes of this section, a person is "visibly intoxicated" when inebriated to such an extent that the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction. A person's blood alcohol content does not constitute prima facie evidence to establish that a person is visibly intoxicated within the meaning of this section, but may be admissible as relevant evidence of the person's intoxication.
Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to provide a right of recovery to a person who suffers injury or death proximately caused by the person's voluntary intoxication unless the person is under the age of twenty-one years. No person over the age of twenty-one years or their dependents, personal representative, and heirs may assert a claim for damages for personal injury or death against a seller of intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises arising out of the person's voluntary intoxication.

The 4th statute is why Hancock's father is claiming INVOLUNTARY intoxication.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 25, 2007 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ahh.....

...thanks for this. You're right of course, Hancock's father is relying on paragraph four.

To those who think Shannon's is liable because they knew and/or got him drunk, read the applicable statutes here. Hancock's father essentially is going to have to prove that Shannon's plied him with drinks and got him more intoxicated than the deceased intended. A very hard sell, when Josh is no longer around to say anything about it.

In layman's terms, these statutes say that if a person is intent on going in and getting drunk, the bar isn't liable for what happens as a result. While Hancock's father is going to say they kept serving him once he was "visibly intoxicated", likely an element of "involuntary intoxication", Shannon's will counter that once they noticed that, they offered to get him a cab. While this is also a he siad/she said type of thing, the other evidence, albeit circumstantial (the marijuana, Hancock's prior drinking habits), would suggest the bar did all it could and isn't liable.

THAT SAID, often defendants do a cost/benefit analysis. Hypothetically speaking, the defendants here may determine that it will cost $500K to defend and win, If they don't recover costs, that's a lot to prove what they feel they already know. If $250K will make it go away, then they write the check. That stinks, but could also be what happens.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on May 25, 2007 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And what's more

The guy made over $400K per year and couldn't get a cab to drive him home when he went out drinking. This blame game his family is trying to play is completely despicable.

by Aaron on May 24, 2007 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Bar isn't Responsible

The reports when this happened all indicated that not only did the bar offer to call a cab for Hancock, but also that Hancock declined and said that was was staying at a hotel down the street. So the bar should have called the police and said "there's a guy walking down the street going to a hotel two blocks away that's had a little too much to drink?" The bar should demand a jury trial in this case, because no right thinking person would accept that they have any liability in this.

And so it goes

by jc60625 on May 25, 2007 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

The only people who are going to benefit from all this are the lawyers.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on May 25, 2007 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No...

... he said he was going to meet some people at the Westin. Who knew if he was going to drive to get there or what. My point was that the bar acknowledged he was impaired at the time. That is very damning evidence and any good lawyer will build a case around that.

Its easy for everyone to dismiss this because Hancock is the only one dead and his dad is the one suing. Had Hancock killed a mother and her 6-year old daughter people would be significantly more outraged that the bar overserved someone they acknowledged was impaired, then allowed him to leave without any legitimate follow-up.

It is the fact that the bar manager realized that Hancock was impaired that is damning evidence.

DmL

by dmlichte on May 25, 2007 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

So, the bar keeps Hancock from leaving because in this crazy legal environment of blame everyone but the person responsible for his own behavior, if they don't, they'll get sued. Then, Hancock turns around and sues them for unlawful restraint, not to mention the practical problems of physically preventing a customer (who's a professional athlete, no less) whose business they hope to have again from leaving.

Hancock chose to drink. When he stepped onto that path, he accepted (or at least should have) the consequences of whatever unfolded. And so should everyone else.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 25, 2007 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Enough

Stop going to extremes. I never said he should be restrained. I simply said that I believe bars, when they recognize that a patron is overserved, has SOME degree of resonsbility to act. I'm not absolving Hancock of the lions share of it.

But I want anyone who so vehimently disagrees with me to think about any of their loved ones who may be driving around on this Memorial Day weekend and I'd like you to consider how you'd prefer that a bar or restaurant deal with a clearly overserved patron who is about to hop into their car just at the same time that your loved one is in the same neighborhood of that bar.

DmL

by dmlichte on May 25, 2007 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

Arguing the extreme is one rather effective way of demonstrating that you need to have clear, well-defined standard of behavior before you can start holding someone responsible. You keep wanting to apportion some part of the responsibility to the restaurant, but you have yet to explain what they're obligated to do, what they're not, and why. Shannon's offered Hancock a cab; he said no. But you feel they should have done more, from a legal standpoint. So lay out the standards of what an establishment is required to do to absolve themselves from being the subject of a lawsuit.

Conflating the emotional response to the hypothetical family member with a dispassionate discussion of what should be the legal standards of behavior only muddies the waters. Such conflation is what drives the vigilante posse to go after the bad guy and hang 'em high, and then ask the questions later.

I appreciate your emotional response to this situation and the desire for someone - anyone - to step in and prevent an incapacitated person from making a poor decision that could have tragic consequences, and I would like to see more people step forward and be one's brother's keeper. But I'm not willing to let that desire be translated into legal liability when it doesn't happen.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 25, 2007 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

But if you make taking action on the suspicion that someone is impaired cause for liability, then you'll wind up with exactly the opposite behavior you desire.

In the future, no bartender is going to offer to call someone a cab who might need one because that will open the door to being held liable if that person declines and then does something harmful. It's far better to encourage intervention and absolve the person offering it.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 25, 2007 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely correct

I cannot disagree with that at all. One of the huge ironies of the legal/liability system. Once you acknowledge a potential problem exists, add that to the list of things you now need to attend to.

DmL

by dmlichte on May 25, 2007 6:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

In a perfect world, the restaurant sees the suit thru to the end and in doing so, helps shape the law so that future suits have even less of chance of winning, or even being filed.

Unfortunately, as BeerCub has pointed out, for the restaurant's insurance company, this is strictly an ad hoc business decision where the goal will be to minimize the cost. And almost always, the best way to do that is to pay the plaintiff to go away.

Now, if Hancock's father had to pay all the costs of the suit if he lost, would he have filed? Not very likely. Or if we had a system comparable to England where a solicitor has to accept the suit first and can be reprimanded for accepting frivolous actions, this suit would never have seen the light of day.

But in this country, bringing suit is a financial decision. Lawyers need clients and they know insurance companies almost always will take a known expense, however unjustified, over the uncertainty of a jury verdict. And, just as importantly, these cases are resolved individually rather than from a macro perspective that evaluates their overall effect on our society.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 25, 2007 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

She did act--she offered him a cab.

He is an adult and made an adult choice to drive drunk. Shannon's is not a day care center with responsibility for minor children who are not old enough to make their own choices.

Why can't people take responsibility for their own decisions????? Or, in this case, the families of those who made their own decisions?

by dfrancon on May 25, 2007 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

However...

... despite him being an adult, everyone on here seems to be acknowledging that alcohol impairs. Amongst the things that alcohol impairs is adult judgement. So where is the disconnect here? He's an adult, he choose to drink, drinking impaired a lot of his abilities.

I am not saying that the blame is 50/50, 60/40, or even 90/10, but I do believe that the bar plays a role here and the fact that Pat Shannon, the bar manager and daughter of Mike Shannon was overheard acknowledging Hancock's impairment while he was still in the bar will be heavily exploited by any attorney.

DmL

by dmlichte on May 25, 2007 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Questions:

And understand that these questions are legitimate requests to help me understand your viewpoint.

As I understand your argument, Josh Hancock walked into Shannon's a capable, responsible adult who has the authority to make decisions. As said adult, he decided to impare himself and diminish his own ability to make decisions. Therefore, are you arguing that legally, he should be considered more of a child than an adult?

Also, is it your argument that if you and I are in the proximity of an impared (i.e. drunk) person, and we recognize his drunken state, we are (by virtue of our proximity) obligated to care for this person/make decisions on his behalf until he sobers up?

by Rev Gunia on May 25, 2007 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

first off, let me again say that I have zero sympathy for Hancock. I have a bit of empathy for his father who lost his son. That aside, I am strictly trying to look at the legal ramifications of this and what helps me do this is to not look at this through the eyes of a judge or jury siding with or against Hancock, but being a judge or jury siding with someone fictional who could have been killed by Hancock.

As to your first question, I think that you're going to a bit of an extreme but perhaps this is all semantics. Hancock was an impaired adult. He should have been treated as an impaired adult. What exactly that means, I'm not sure, but I do believe that the bar that makes a business serving and ultimately assisting their customers reach a state of inebriation have some public obligations to help make sure that this individual doesn't harm the public. My point is this; Pat Shannon determined Hancock's ability to drive was imparied therefor she should also have concluded that his abilities to make appropriate and safe decisions was also impaired.

As to your second point, I'm going to draw a similarity to Good Samaritan Laws which deal with providing first aid. The average citizen who provides or doesn't provide first aid to someone in need has no duty to act. They can, and they are then covered by the Good Samaritan Act. Someone who is "on duty" as a health care worker does have a duty to act and is not protected by the Good Samaritan Act. Now if this health care worker provides the appropriate standard of care, their actions are defendable in a court of law. So you or I, had we been in the bar or had we seen Josh Hancock stumble towards his car, we didn't have a legal duty to act, however we did likely have some type of moral duty to act. Pat Shannon was on duty and being paid to provide her services. She did have a legal duty to act.

DmL

by dmlichte on May 25, 2007 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Read The Statutes From Above.....

...they're informative.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on May 25, 2007 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And this...

... is why Dram Shop Laws exist in many states. They also vary from state to state. The differentiation that I was trying to make was with a third party that thankfully was not involved. Had there been, Shannon's restaurant would have been a target and likely would have ended up paying out whatever the state Dram Shop Law limit is (often in the area of $60,000).

DmL

by dmlichte on May 25, 2007 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for your clarification.

by Rev Gunia on May 25, 2007 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

All I can say DmL...

is you have got to be kidding me. You are putting an outrageous burden on any bar/restaurant/tavern/baseball field. If that's the way you believe the statute should be set up, all bars from here on out will require breathalyzers before serving you every single drink, you will never be allowed to purchase more than one drink at a time, etc. and this will apply to everyone who enters the establishment. How do they know who is driving/who is drunk, etc. I am beginning to agree with the guy who likened your stance to prohibition. This is voluntary intoxication...if a person intends to go out and get tore up, have alternatives available beforehand. Have a DD, a cab, a friend on hand.

It is not their job to babysit Hancock.

"Not true at all. Vaseline is manufactured right here in the United States." - Don Sutton, about the rumors that he uses a foreign substance on the ball

by Orangeman94 on May 25, 2007 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you believe...

... that as someone drinks, their abilities to make decisions is not impaired?

I just think this isn't as cut and dry as you make it seem and the fact that Pat Shannon acknowledged that Hancock was impaired makes her liable to take some sort of legitimate action.

Again, I ask you this. Had Hancock killed your sister or mother or son, would you feel that Pat Shannon had taken significant enough action in regards to making sure that the public was not endangered by Hancock?

DmL

by dmlichte on May 25, 2007 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe I don't know enough, but...

Am I missing something about the situation? You keep bringing up the fact that she knew he was "drunk". I guess I'm asking you what she should have done. I have given extreme alternatives, ie, breathylzers, limits on alcohol orders, but what is it that she failed to do? Order him into her car so she could drive him home or to the next bar? Handcuff him to a cab? You're trying to fill the role of a legislator, because under the current state of the law, I don't believe what she did is actionable, nor is she liable. But if you believe it SHOULD be actionable, and she SHOULD be liable, you better be able to draw a line at some point. If your line is prohibition, so be it. I disagree. If not, please offer some suggestions.

And stop attributing words to me that are obviously not true. Of course as someone drinks their abilities to make decisions are impaired. But if you choose to drink, you choose to live(or not) with the consequences. Josh was a big boy. No one was supposed to hold his hand anymore.

"Not true at all. Vaseline is manufactured right here in the United States." - Don Sutton, about the rumors that he uses a foreign substance on the ball

by Orangeman94 on May 25, 2007 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The bigger picture

Yes, Hancock had to live by his actions. No one was supposed to hold his hand anymore. But what about the public endangerment. I don't give a damn about Hancock, I'm trying to make a bigger point here that the restaurant had an obligation that they did not fulfill.

I certainly don't believe in prohibition nor do I believe in breathalizers, but I do believe that when a bar manager recognized that one of her regular patrons is incapacitated, they should do a bit more than allow them to walk out the door. I do not believe offering a cab and allowing that to be dismissed is substantial enough.

But the fact of the matter is that Mike Shannon's Restaurant feels that their employees have some responsibility in this area. I can tell you this for a fact. In my spare time I conduct bar and restaurant integrity shops. You go to mid and high end restaurants and spend perhaps an hour or two on site. You spend a significant portion of that time in the bar (some places will have you spend several hours in the bar). You then have to fill out an extensive report on all aspects of the bar and restaurant (these can take several hours) providing "yes" and "no" answers along with extensive narrative. Every bar integrity survey that I have completed asks about overserved patrons. The surveys ALWAYS want to know if the bartender overserved patrons. They also want to know if the bartender appropriately dealt with patrons who were overserved. One of the companies that I perform shops for, in addition to contracting individuals to shop for some very good restaurants in the Chicago area also contracts people to shop for Mike Shannon's restaurant. Many restaurants feel that their employees have a responsibility in dealing with overserved patrons. Mike Shannon's does.

DmL

by dmlichte on May 25, 2007 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So...

did Mike Shannon's fire this lady on the spot? And the fact is, it's nice to say that "We as restaurant owners feel our employees have a responsibility in dealing with overserved patrons", but that doesn't mean (a) that Mike Shannon's is admitting any liability (b) that they feel the server did not do enough. Simply because you feel that way does not mean the law will change. You also have failed to provide any reasonable additional precautions the restaurant(s) could take. And what is the definition of a bartender "appropriately dealing" with an overserved customer? I'm just looking to see where your going with this. What in your opinion is enough?

"Not true at all. Vaseline is manufactured right here in the United States." - Don Sutton, about the rumors that he uses a foreign substance on the ball

by Orangeman94 on May 25, 2007 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be honest...

... I'm not sure whats enough. I never said I had all the answers and I don't know what's enough but I certainly know what's not enough. A customer walking drunken towards the door and asking "do you need a cab" as he's half way out the door isn't enough.

You're missing my point and it is in the discussion. Everyone wants to go to one extreme or another, that Hancock was 100% totally responsible or that the restaurant was to blame. There is a lot more to it than that and the reason I bring this up is because this kind of thing happens all the time and often its not just the drinker who ends up dead. I am not abdicating Hancock of responsbility, and the lions share of it at that. But I think that multiple parties can contribute to a problem.

As for the law changing, the law, as far as I can tell, simply protects the restaurant against harm inflicted on the drunken party. Unless I read it wrong, had someone else been killed or injured, that law does not protect Mike Shannon's against a law suit.

Mike Shannon's is admitting some responsbility when they use that standard as an evaluative measurement. And they did not, so far as I know, fire the lady, who happened to be Mike Shannon's daughter.

I have no problem saying that I don't know what is enough and that isn't preventing me from putting the overarching issue on the table. I believe the restaurant has some responsibility, when the see a drunken patron, to protect the public from the individual that they helped overserve.

DmL

by dmlichte on May 25, 2007 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

The public endangerment? That's completely on Hancock. He chose to drink and then drive.

Of course the restaurant is interested in what its employees do about overserved patrons, but that's driven by laws that make alcohol legal and then hold someone other than the consumer liable for drinking it.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 25, 2007 7:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

The public endangerment? That's completely on Hancock.

Why?

Why is it completely on Hancock? Why isn't it 95% on Hancock and 5% on the restaurant?

DmL

by dmlichte on May 25, 2007 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

DmL

I enjoy reading your posts and your thought process. We're going to have to respectfully disagree on this one.

by Rev Gunia on May 25, 2007 7:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice.

You might want to check to see if there is a confidentiality clause in your "shop" agreement. My guess is that Shannon's expects confidentiality from the company it hires to do the shops--your employer--and that you just violated that.

Nicely done, man of integrity.

by dfrancon on May 26, 2007 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

The confidentiality agreement is that we not divulge which restaurants use which specific integrity shop companies. It is common practice and pretty much every major restaurant uses a mystery shop company. Restaurants want people to know they use these services. They don't want people knowing who they use so that people aren't targeting companies so they can shop which restaurants.

That aside, your low blow personal comment was pretty rude. Not sure why you couldn't have focused on the actual conversation.

DmL

by dmlichte on May 26, 2007 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

The information you disclosed about Shannon's mystery shops--specifically, the details concerning testing whether they overserve--is exactly the kind of thing Hancock's father's lawyers will use against them in the lawsuit, for the reasons you note. It's one thing if they discover it in the normal course of the lawsuit, but another if an employee of the shop company leaks it in a public blog. It wasn't your place to write about that and it is relevant to the topic, as you are demanding a level of "integrity" from Shannon's that you personally fail to achieve in writing about Shannon's.

by dfrancon on May 27, 2007 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

This is common restaurant practice and anyone who knows anything about the restaurant industry knows this. But the fact that you choose to make your comments so personal makes me believe that it doesn't matter what I say. Not sure why you had to go the personal route and I believe that says a lot about you. It wasn't necessary.

by dmlichte on May 27, 2007 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

It's really pretty simple. Someone who choses to impair his decision-making responsibility isn't excused by that impairment.

Again, this is not a legal perspective, which is most unfortunate. If we, as a society, would start holding individuals like Hancock responsible for their behavior rather than those around them, two things (at least) would happen. First, society would be relieved of the idiots who demand they be protected from their own stupid behavior. Second, people would learn to stop blaming others and start accepting that they must shoulder the responsibility of their actions, and especially those actions that lead to making poor decisions.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 25, 2007 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why..

... can't both Hancock and the restaurant both be held responsible?

If I'm a tow truck driver who just saw some idiot get decapitated careening into the back of my rig, why can't I harbor a little ill will towards the restaurant that allowed him to depart in that state with little attempt to stop him?

DmL

by dmlichte on May 25, 2007 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

Because the restaurant isn't responsible for what Hancock chose to do. Even more importantly, some server making $3/hour plus tips isn't going to pay the cost, the owner is, one way or another, and ultimately, the customers do. As soon as you give even 1% of the responsibility to the restaurant, you absolve to some degree Hancock's behavior and place some portion of the burden of his choices on someone else.

This is the problem of the 'no-fault' society we live in. Everyone shares the cost of a relatively few irresponsible people. I shouldn't have to bear the cost of other people's decisions, nor should they have to bear the cost of mine. Unfortunately, it's usually the idiots who can't pay for the consequences of their behavior, so our legal system has adjusted by spreading the burden to those who can, and burdening them with responsibility for the actions of other adults.

I would prefer a society where the legal standard is completely focused on individual responsibility, since the law can only compel a minimum standard of behavior. Anything beyond that is a community 'good' (such as offering to call a cab), but shouldn't be compelled, nor should be punished for failing to be provided. Doing so leads to the "no good deed go unpunished" syndrome.

As for the tow truck driver, he should be able to recover damages for the incident, but only from the person responsible - Hancock.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 25, 2007 7:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jed..

... there are laws that exist so this isn't just me spinning a hypothesis. If you want a clear and concise article on dram shop laws, here it is:
http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/dramshop.htm

Restaurants, bars and even stadium concessionaires have been held liable and forced to pay significant damages. Dram shop laws vary by state. Some states say bars and restaurants can only be held liable when the individual being served was under age, but others have a much wider view, placing a heavy burden on bars who serve individuals who are clearly intoxicated. So there is legal basis and while the liabilities are often capped, the laws in many states do say that bars have a role.

Missouri's dram shop law is noted for being one of the more strinent ones. It, as we have seen, pretty much absolves the restaurant when the individual who drank is the only one injured. It seems very likely that Hancock's case won't go too far. However had Hancock killed someone else, its very likely that the bar would have, under dram shop laws, been held liable.

So this isn't me rounding up a posse. My point was to recognize a middle ground.

DmL

by dmlichte on May 25, 2007 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

I'm familiar with the dram shop laws. I used to be part-owner of a store on the north shore that sold wine and beer, and a requirement for the license was having dram shop insurance.

I understand that currently, liability extends to servers. I am opposed to that liability for the reasons I've stated. My participation in this diary has been from a perspective of the way things should be, not as they are legally.

Because of the way things actually are legally, there's a reasonable chance that Shannon's (if it goes to trial) will be found to share some liability in Hancock's death. Assuming Hancock wasn't physically coerced into drinking, I'm saddened and somewhat offended by this possibility. But then, there is much about our legal system to be saddened and offended by, so it's not like this makes the Hancock suit unique.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 25, 2007 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I appreciate your rhetorical purpose

...for asking us to place our feet in Josh Hancock's family's shoes. However, I really do believe that all of us--those that tend to agree with you and those that tend to disagree with you--are doing that very thing. If we're going to argue a point, it should be equally valid whether it happens to someone we love or not. Having considered that my brother, wife, or friend may be the victim of a drunk driver, I still don't think Shannon's was responsible for their actions.

by Rev Gunia on May 25, 2007 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The restaurant tried to get him a ride

and he declined. Their responsibilities from that point are limited, are they not?

"Avoid the clap- Jimmy Duggan(That's good advice)"

by tommy veryzer on May 24, 2007 7:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with part of what you are stating....

...but what should the business do? I am not being argumentative or harsh here, just practically speaking what is their responsibility and what can they do legally? Can they physically restrain him and prevent him from entering his vehicle? I guess that they could call the cops and have him arrested as soon as he tries to get in to his vehicle? Again, I am not arguing here just trying to think through the options. I'd be much more sympathetic to your concern if Hancock were a minor, but the guy should plan on renting a limo or taxi when he's going out drinking.

I suppose that their best option was to stop serving him at some point. On this option I totally agree with you. But this is a subjective cut-off level and it's possible that even when they stop serving him that he's incapacitated enough to have an accident. Bottom line is that he should have arranged for a Cab/limo/friend/family member to drive him home before hand or during the evening when he decided to keep drinking. But the bar owner should face some penalty/fine/liability for continuing to serve him.

by DudeVf11 on May 26, 2007 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mike Shannon--no sympathy

Has been big part of the drinking "culture'' of baseball and the Cardinals for years...grew up listening to him always saying "this Bud's for you'' a spokesman for the brewery which, for years, owned the Cardinals.
He's made a nice living from being a bit player on a World Series winner (64?)...nothing special as a broadcaster, never liked his style.

Yes you could build a case against the team and Shannon's restaurant...the Post story quoted other customers as saying the guy was smashed, and bartenders are supposed to show some responsiility. Did bar serve him "free'' or comp drinks through the night?? That might be key...are records of such things kept?

If the father/family wants to get more money out of their son's irresponsible behavior, and they've got good laywers, anything's possible.

Have bars been sued successfully for overserving customers who then died, on roads or from other deaths?? I'm sure it's been tried....

by writerinwrigley on May 24, 2007 7:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Hancock had a long term

drinking problem- that was well known by people associated with the Cardinals and with other teams that he played for.

Maybe his father should be the one looking in the mirror- I have lost a lot of the compassion that this entire sorry episode brought out. Just be glad that he didn't take anyone else out with him.

"Avoid the clap- Jimmy Duggan(That's good advice)"

by tommy veryzer on May 24, 2007 7:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i'm sry for this...

in advance. i dont like to talk about dead people. this whole things stupid. it nots anyones fault but josh hancocks. he was being a dumbass. he drank and drank himself into a drunken stuper. he was possibly high. who has drugs in their possesion that isnt using them??? its not the restaurants fault,nor the tow truck driver and no one else for that matter. he was a grown man capable of making responsible decisions and he didnt. he paid the ultimate price. if his ignorant father wants to sue someone maybe he oughtta start with himself. maybe he should of babysitted his grown ass son more. in my 25 year life i have made some stupid decisions and luckily i havent had to pay the same price but truth be known it was nobodys fault but my own. i have never ever been forced to buy alcohol or consume it. as far as the post about educationg more on the effects of alcohol. gimme a break? i'm 25 and for the better part of my life ive been told by thousands of people and commercials about the affects of alcohol and so was josh hancock. this lawsuit is stupid and so are the people that filed it.

Here comes the nasty leftie to shut it down in the 9th......Clay Rapada!!!!

by cubsluver22 on May 24, 2007 8:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you.

I was hoping this sad episode would have been an opportunity to teach a lesson.

It has, all right, but not the one I'd hoped for.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on May 24, 2007 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

with due respect......you are exactly correct here

n/t

by LuisSalazar on May 24, 2007 9:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

Spot on.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 25, 2007 8:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sad

Personal accountability thrown out the window yet again. I'm sorry for the Hancock family, but it is wrong of them to try and place blame and gain financially from what happen. Their son was a 29 year old adult for crying out loud.

"It's not early anymore" - Sweet Lou

by BlueMike on May 25, 2007 8:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Scary.

I agree with you 100%.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on May 25, 2007 8:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Faith Plus One - Contributing Editor -http://www.inaleagueofherown.com

by Faith plus 1 on May 25, 2007 9:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is as simply...

as it can be put. The only person to blame for his death is Josh himself.

2007 Badger Football - 1-0 every week...

by Schwa on May 25, 2007 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's part of

the "blame everyone else" culture that's been encouraged by trial lawyers in this country for years.

If it were my kid (and I have two of them, neither of whom is old enough to drink or drive yet), I'd be wondering what I may have done wrong in raising them that would have led to a drinking problem and to such poor decision making. The last thing I'd do is lash out at the restaurant.

"Hello again, everybody. Harry Caray from Wrigley Field on a beautiful day for baseball."

by danimal15 on May 25, 2007 4:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs