Take responsibility for Pete's sake.....

[Push-Pull]

I can maybe see how the restaruant could be implicated. I could possibly even see MAYBE the tow truck company being negligent in this case. But how on God's green earth could you even think of implicating the driver of the stalled car?!?!?

Yet another perfect example of not letting responsibility lay where it's supposed to......

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?cnn=yes

[Willravel]

Maybe we should sue the car company, too. We can sue the city because he was driving on a public road. Let's sue Levis because he was wearing jeans.

I call BS.

[dksuddeth]

if only he had a gun, they could sue the gun maker also.

yes will, i'm being sarcastic.

[tenniels]

Maybe they could sue the makers of the liquor he was drinking too. If they hadn't produced whatever he was drinking perhaps this could have been avoided. FUCK THAT!! I don't know where people get off suing anyone and everyone over anything and everything. You're absolutely right Push-Pull, people need to be more responsible for their actions. People also need to realize shit happens and not everything is worth suing over. I think the courts need to start throwing shit like this out and fining the people suing for wasting the courts time. Drunk, on the phone, no seat belt, not paying attention to the road, sound like that was definitely NOT his fault. A driver that was paying attention should see a tow truck and be able to avoid the situation, whether or not there were flares etc set out. What a bunch of horse shit.

[Xazy]

I wish there was sanctions for frivolous lawsuits such as this.

[The_Jazz]

Once again, the term "frivolous" gets tossed around like it actually applied to lawsuits.

There's no such thing.

Every good lawyer always files suit against everyone involved in an incident. Everyone. If they don't, they are in breach of their duties.

It's entirely possible that Tolar is actually at fault here. Why were he on the left side of the road? Couldn't he get to the right shoulder? Leaving a car parked in an open lane of traffic at night is a stupid thing and a major traffic hazard.

Just so everyone knows, I think Hancock was an idiot for driving drunk while talking on a cell phone and that he was mostly to blame for the accident. However, you get to assign percentages of blame in most states, and if Justin Tolar is 1% to blame, then the lawyer was correct in naming him in the suit. Personally, I think it breaks down 50% Hancock, 25% restaurant, 15% tow truck driver and 10% Tolar, but that's my opinion. There were multiple mistakes by people other than Hancock, but he made at least as many as everyone else combined.

[squeeeb]

it seems to be the new "american way." something bad is happening to me, therefore, someone owes me money....

he was always handed a drink, he didn't HAVE to drink them. i and many people i know have been in bars and didn't drink alchochol. maybe i missed somehting, but how does the towing truck and the stalled car play into any of it? hancock hit the stalled car and tow truck. it's not like the tow truck and car were sitting there hoping to get hit by a drunk driver. to think someone is guilty for merely "being there" is incredible.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by squeeeb

it seems to be the new "american way." something bad is happening to me, therefore, someone owes me money....

he was always handed a drink, he didn't HAVE to drink them. i and many people i know have been in bars and didn't drink alchochol. maybe i missed somehting, but how does the towing truck and the stalled car play into any of it? hancock hit the stalled car and tow truck. it's not like the tow truck and car were sitting there hoping to get hit by a drunk driver. to think someone is guilty for merely "being there" is incredible.

But what if Hancock had been completely sober? They (the car and tow truck drivers) weren't merely being there - they were there. They were impeding the flow of traffic. They were in an active lane. Yes, they were "just" there, but the important thing is exactly where "there" is. If they were off on the shoulder, your argument holds a lot more water, but as it stands, they were in a place that could and did cause an accident. Did Hancock contribute - oh God yes, but he wasn't the only contributor.

Not to get off on a diatribe here, but the American system actually works fairly efficiently and rights a lot of wrongs. There are times where courts tap the deep pockets of big companies (really their insurance companies) to make sure that injured people are not going to become a drain on society. The court sees someone who was killed or hurt and finds those who have the resources to pay, even if their actual liability is minimal. The alternative is to leave the injured destitute. I perfer the current method.

[Average_Joe]

The lawsuit claimed Tolar was negligent in allowing his Geo Prism to reach the point where it stalled on the highway, and for failing to move it out of the way of oncoming traffic. A police report said the Prism became stalled when it spun out after being cut off by another vehicle.

I don't understand the negligence of Tolar. His car stalled when it was spun out after being cut off by another vehicle. If his car was stalled, how could he have moved it? I do think that road flares or road cones should have been put down, but for someone who was driving drunk and not paying attention to the road, would it have alerted him?

[gov135]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

However, you get to assign percentages of blame in most states, and if Justin Tolar is 1% to blame, then the lawyer was correct in naming him in the suit. Personally, I think it breaks down 50% Hancock, 25% restaurant, 15% tow truck driver and 10% Tolar, but that's my opinion. There were multiple mistakes by people other than Hancock, but he made at least as many as everyone else combined.

I would hope the court would take into consideration that non-impaired motorists seemed to be having no issues with the potential hazards presented. If you take it from the perspective that those not drinking and driving did not get into an accident, than 100% of the blame should go to the driver that was impaired.

If Hancock were a fast food employee instead of a millionaire relief pitcher, I wonder if the father would have sued.

[analog]

So let me get this straight...

1. Fuckwad drives drunk.

2. Fuckwad hits something while driving drunk.

...It's not drunk Fuckwad's fault because it shouldn't have been there?

He was driving drunk. I don't give a shit who he is (and p.s., that's the only reason this is "news"), he hit something while driving drunk and killed himself. I hope that his family not only loses, but is counter-sued back to whatever rock of stupidity they crawled out of for trying to fault the thing that the drunken moron hit. It doesn't matter that the car was in the way, traffic law is that you are responsible for avoiding hazards, and compensating for road conditions.

Not to mention that I have absolutely zero sympathy for this dipshit that drove drunk. I hope no one else was injured in the collision, but the drunk can rot.

[Push-Pull]

Originally Posted by analog

It doesn't matter that the car was in the way, traffic law is that you are responsible for avoiding hazards, and compensating for road conditions.

Bingo! In my state, it's called "failure to control vehicle". Heck, I had a freind get one because some idiot pulled a U-turn in front of him. He wasn't drunk, just in the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up totaling his car all because of a "road hazard" he had no time to avoid.

Unfortunately, I don't think the courts think that way when it comes to civil suits.

[BBtB]

I don't know about the tow truck driver and the car for sure but I believe they where partially at fault. I DO know that legally speaking the restuarant was at fault. Or atleast in part. Its a well known law that restaurants and bars and any place that sells alcohol even grocery stores are liable if they sell to minors or people that are allready drunk. Period. If you don't like it get the law changed but while the law is in place. Its the law. The lawyer is right to file against them. From a legal standpoint.