Friday, May 25, 2007

Re-Sending: Friday 05/25 A.M. Quickie
Indy 500, LeBron, Smoltz, Hancock, More

Was trying to edit today's post and ended up saving myself the hassle and just deleting it instead. (There seems to be some sort of confusion that my deleting it was accidental. Hardly.) For those with an RSS feed, sorry for the re-send. Have a safe and enjoyable Memorial Day weekend.

Indy 500: Gender-fender-bender! I'm not embarrassed to admit that my entire motivation for following the Indy 500 is to see a woman driver win the race. This year, there are three chances (out of 33 drivers) to see it:

The ubiquitous Danica Patrick, the slow-n-steady Sarah Fisher and the mystery-hottie Venezuelan, Milka Duno. Danica came close in 2005, and it's going to happen eventually. And it will be the biggest gender-bending moment in sports history. Ladies, start your engines.

NBA: LeBron can't win, either way. LeBron passed up the game-maker in Game 1, and he got crushed for it. Let's see what happens today, after LeBron TOOK the game-maker at the end of Game 2 – and missed, dropping the Cavs into a 0-2 hole.

Was he guarded, um, "aggressively" by Rip Hamilton? Sure: But give the refs huge credit for not giving James the star call.

(Lesson for LeBron: If you've acted like a role player in Game 1, they're going to give you role-player calls in Game 2.)

For the record: I'm glad he took the shot, even if he missed. Was it a foul? The Pistons knew LeBron (undoubtedly thinking about Game 1) was going to take the shot, no matter what. I think it was just smart D.

Playoff breakout: Jason Maxiell, the undersized (6-foot-7) Pistons sub had 15 points, 6 rebounds and 2 blocks. Between Maxiell, Paul Millsap and Craig Smith, "tweener" is no longer a dirty word in the NBA Draft.

Vick Doggy Dogg: The prosecutor says he isn't sure if there's enough evidence. But, as places like Pro Football Talk and others have suggested, don't you think the NFL's CIA-style "security" department has got better intel? Well: They're offering to help, which is the right thing to do here, even if it means crushing one of the league's most marketable and popular stars.

Marvin Lewis' big mouth: A day after Bengals coach Marvin Lewis accused Cincy police of profiling his players, he took it back. Of course he took it back. But that doesn't mean he still doesn't believe it.

NCAA LAX Final Four: I'm sticking with irony as the guiding force behind my picks -- Duke to win it all.

MLB Feuds: I love this Marlins-Phillies thing. It's nasty and bitter, but it hasn't devolved into bench-clearing stupidity... yet. But, oh, it's coming. For now, though, they are straddling the fine line between enmity and entertainment.

MLB Stud, Pitcher Emeritus: John Smoltz. The future Hall of Famer racked up his 200th career win (and he did it against his buddy Tom Glavine and Atlanta's division rival, the Mets). Sweeeeet.

MLB Stud, Batter Emeritus: Frank Thomas tied Lou Gehrig (and Fred McGriff) at 21st on the all-time home-run list (493 total). Another future Hall of Famer.

MLB Dud, Emeritus: Elijah Dukes. If he played in the NFL or the NBA, is there any doubt he'd be punished more harshly than being held out of a few mid-week games?

Josh Hancock Update: It was probably inevitable to find out that his father is suing the restaurant that served his son the alcohol, along with the tow truck and driver of the car on the roadside that Hancock struck. A parent's grief must be torturous, but he has done more to undermine his son's memory with this than he can possibly imagine.

Fixing the BCS, Cont'd: Thanks to John Radcliffe at AOL Fanhouse for picking out my idea of radically shaking up the BCS by having the SEC secede. (Or, I should call it: "Project SECede.")

He's right, of course, that the idea is ludicrous. But, as I mentioned in the comments of the original post, I'm simply suggesting the biggest power-brokers (in this case, the SEC) shake things up. I'm open to any of the leagues shaking things up.

(Radcliffe lost me when he said he could get behind the "Plus-One" system. If you look back over the history of the BCS, if you tried to apply the Plus-One, it would be even bigger mayhem than you have now. First: Try seeding 4 or 8 teams without controversy; good luck with that. Second: Without seeding, try figuring out how to determine who the top two teams are after bowls have been played, if more than two clear-cut teams are left standing. Plus-One is a zero.)

UFC: Chuck Liddell vs. Quinton Jackson. It's time for mainstream sports media to actually understand that MMA has eclipsed boxing (the pay-per-view popularity of Mayweather-DeLaHoya notwithstanding) – it has for a little while now. Boxing imploded itself, but MMA has done everything right. I'm not sure most casual fans understand precisely how huge and successful MMA is -- and it's getting even bigger. It's already a huge hit on cable. HBO is getting into it. ESPN is getting into it. ( even partnered with an MMA-focused site, to boost its coverage.) And it's not even close to where it will be in a few years. (I have just learned that friend-of-blog Michael David "MDS" Smith will be live-blogging it for AOL Fanhouse. My drinking game will be: How many ways can MDS describe "Ouch?"

UPDATE: The Fan's Attic posts on MMA, noting the SI cover this week. OK: So what happens when it becomes SI's biggest-selling non-swimsuit cover of the year? SI's only problem is that it's treating MMA like some kind of novelty, while still giving stuff like "Boxing" its own pages and stories, played totally straight. I'm sorry: Between them, which is the sport that is more relevant right now with a bigger audience? (Hint: It ain't boxing.)

Must-Read: The Big Picture's interview with The Dugout.

Blog debut of the Week (besides VarsityDad, which wasn't really a debut): DraftKevinDurant. It had to happen. And I'm glad it did.

Speaking of which: Have you checked out Varsity Dad yet? It's my new blog dedicated to raising a great sports fan. Check it out! (And sincere thanks to everyone who wrote in or blogged about it in the last 24 hours. This morning, you can catch it mentioned in MJD's daily must-read morning "Debriefing" on Fanhouse. Damn, that's a lot of Fanhouse props today. Mottram et al are doing something very right.)

Finally, thoughts and prayers with everyone who has lost loved ones who were serving in the armed forces.

-- D.S.

Earlier Comments (sorry for the formatting):

Matt T said...

Vintage Smoltz last night. That was awesome. Win 200 against the Mets at Turner Field. I wish I could have made it.

Weird fact of the day, Smoltz, Maddux and Glavine all won their 200th at Turner.

And guess what, The Braves have won all 3 series against the mets

Andy said...

I'm sorry, but the Hancock lawsuit just pisses me off beyond anything in awhile. He was drunk. He was speeding. He was talking on a cell phone. He was not wearing a seatbelt. There was marijuana in the car.

How could this possibly be anyone elses fault? The bar overserved him?? Bullshit. And the fact that they threw the tow truck company and driver and the driver of the stalled car just makes it classless. No jury in the world will side with the Hancock family.

I feel their pain. I understand how difficult this time must be for them. But it's his own damn fault. Quit trying to blame everyone else.

Brian in Oxford said...

I can see maybe a hand-check called on Hamilton at the top of the drive, but for the rest of it....

If Hamilton can't play defense like THAT, then why have defense in basketball at all? No foul.

In fact, referees really ought to use that as their measuring stick -- was there something else the defender should have done, or did he "play good defense"? Don't simply use "contact" as a cop-out.

Brian in Oxford said...

If I were the OTHER driver, Andy, I'd counter-sue the parents for needless emotional grief.

GuyInTheCorner said...

I'm not buying the "parent's grief is torture".

I'm buying the Josh Hancock's dad is a moron. I mean common dude.

He is suing a guy whose car stalled because he got cut off and had to spin out so as to not get into a car crash and was being helped by a tow truck guy on the side of a road.

Did this guy do anything wrong? No. But now he will have to endure court costs because of a guy who (I'm assuming, his kid being an MLB'er) is probably done working for life is suing him eventhough it was HIS KID that was:
and hit a stationary object.

Just..... wow.

Mikepcfl said...

If I was the guy with the stalled car or the tow truck guy, I would counter sue Hancock's estate. Hancock hit them while drunk! Would Hancock's father have still sued if the tow truck driver was killed by his drunk son? Hancock is the one who is to blame. This kind of lawsuit pisses me off too. Any sympathy that I had for the family is now gone.

Mikepcfl said...

Also, real quick MLB dud...O's bullpen! What else is new.

Andy said...

I honestly think that this Hancock situation is one of the biggest problems in the United States today. Everybody wants to sue everybody. Nothing is ever anyone's own fault. It's always someone else's fault and they need to be sued in today's America.

I work in a photo lab and we develope a lot of pictures for a law firm. The other day, I printed some pictures of a sidewalk outside of a business for the law firm. At one of the "joints" of the sidewalk(where the put in the line to help avoid cracks", the concrete had become uneven and there was about a 2 inch height difference. However, it was painted yellow as a warning. My guess is someone tripped because they are an idiot and are sueing the business. It's getting completely out of control.

Todd said...

MLB Studs and Duds from yesterday:

1. Jeremy Bonderman - W, 8.0IP, 0ER, 4H, 6Ks
2. Micah Owings - W, 9.0IP, 1ER, 8Ks
3. John Smoltz - W, 7.0IP, 0ER, 7H, 5Ks
4. Carlos Guillen - 2/3, 2HRs, 5RBI
5. Chris Young - 7.0IP, 1ER, 10Ks

1. Sean White - L, 0.2IP, 7ER, 6H, 3BB
2. Ervin Santana - L, 3 2/3IP, 8ER
3. Jorge De La Rosa - L, 4 1/3IP, 9ER, 6H, 7BB
4. Cla Meredith - L, 1.0IP, 2ER, 4H
5. Jae Seo - 5.0IP, 7R, 6ER, 13H

Andy said...

Todd, you forgot a dud.

Honorary MLB Dud:
The Josh Hancock family.

Todd said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Todd said...

I'm with Dan on this one. I think Hancock's father is just grieving and looking for someone to blame.

This case will get thrown out immediately (especially in the case of the stalled tow truck driver)... remember, just because there is a pending lawsuit doesn't mean it'll reach an actual trial.

dwk said...

Cleveland sucks and to be honest the Pistons look pretty terrible too. I mean, the Pistons looked like to me they were trying to give away the first two games of the Conference finals at home! The Cavs are so bad, they couldn't even take them. The last 7-8 minutes of lasts nights game were atrocious.

The Hancock family is a sad story, but they clearly don't realize that someone else could be sueing their son's estate if he had killed someone else driving around like that.

rafael said...

Yes, Dan. A parent's grief can be torturous. My mother lost a daughter and it has affected her for life. But come on...the man is suing the driver of the car that broke down on the road!? You'd think the lawyer would sit him down and calm him down..instead of just trying to get a quick buck.

LeBron was mugged. At the same time, I do think that if you wait to get the last shot, then you are asking for a "man to man" i'm-going-so-stop-me type of situation. There was enough contact for a call though. I'd be far more pissed off at Larry Hughes. Missed a 7 footer?! That guy is a total waste on this team. Leave the rookie Gibson out there instead of Hughes.

Kev Wash said...

Everyone is talking about how Lebron miss the shot but atleast his was contested. Larry Hughes was wide open and missed a simple jumpshot. You are a NBA player, you are suppose to hit it.

And I think that benches clearing in baseball is the stupidest thing in sports. They stand around and act like they are going to do something but then walk away like punks. I still don't understand how no one gets fine/suspended in baseball but football and basketball you do.

Scott said...

There is a difference between "grief" and "cashing in". His father is going for the latter.

Brad said...

Andy - You beat me to it! I'd list the Josh Hancock family as an Honorary MLB Dud every day for the rest of their lives.

I whole-heartedly agree with all of the other comments everyone's made so far. And the "parent's grief is torture" comment is just BS.

If Hancock's father is suing everyone responsible for his son's death, than shouldn't he be suing HIS OWN SON?? Oh wait, I forgot, the restaurant forced Josh Hancock to drink all of those drinks, and then they forced him into his car to drive drunk. This lawsuit is absolutely the most despicable thing I've ever heard of in my entire life.

I regret ever having sympathy for this pathetic family!

Andy said...

I just hope no one settles in the Hancock case. Because I can't honestly think that the Hancock family would win if they go to trial. But you always hear about settlements in high profile cases because businesses are afraid of lost revenue. I just hope it doesn;t happen here.

P.S. Micah Owings? Oh, the guy I dropped 2 days ago in fantasy? What?? He pitched a CG with 8 K's and 1 ER? Go figure....

Troy said...

@andy, I think you'd be surprised (or maybe not) if you knew the true extent of cracked sidewalk lawsuits. I've heard of guys whose entire job is to map sidewalk defects and give "notice" of them to the city, so when someone inevitbally trips on the crack and calls a lawfirm, there's proof the city knew about the defect. Hooray America!

Geoff said...

Stud for yesterday:

Magglio Ordonez: 4-4 with 3 RBIs and 3 runs scored. He is now top 3 in hitting, top 3 in HRs and leading the league in RBIs and runs scored.

Dr. Zoom said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Dr. Zoom said...

Dan, of course they're would be controversy in seeding an eight-team BCS playoff. But the difference between missing out on a #8 seed and a berth in the championship game is the difference between being snubbed and being robbed: one is great sports-talk fodder; the other, a painfully obvious sign of a broken and inadequate system.

chipp said...

The Draft Durant thing is silly. There was a HUGE push in Portland to take Morrison last year that gained a lot of steam from people that didn't really know. Blazers need Oden. Done and Done.

Troy said...

Dan, I'm kind of amazed you're still so dead set against the plus-one. I guess it's because you want a radical change or no change, but looking at it realistically: there won't be a radical change. So I'm to take what we can get--and a plus-one would be a good start.

The "but the 5th team will have a legit gripe" argument completely baffles me. Sure that team would probably argue they were unfairly left out, but under the old system they would have been left out and still behing two other teams that were left out. Hell, the NCAA tournament for basketball lets in about 35 teams and you still here gripes from teams 36-40. (And don't use this argument as fuel for your entire-season-as-giant-playoff idea)

And I think it would have worked pretty well the past several years. Even in years where there are clearly 2 "top" teams, how could they complain about having to beat a one-loss #3 or #4 team to cement their shot? If they can't win that game in
January, they shouldn't have a title-game shot. Last year, I think everyone (outside of Idaho) would have loved to see OSU-Florida and Michigan-USC/LSU/Louisville in a plus-one scenario. Sure the team left out of that final spot would have been pissed, but at least they would have been considered, unlike what actually happened.

2005: USC-OSU, Texas-Penn State
2004: USC-Utah, Oklahoma-Auburn
2003: USC-Michigan, LSU-Oklahoma (bonus points because these matchups actually happened; we were just missing the final game)
2002: I really can't remember which other teams were at the top this year...
2001: Miami-Colorado, Nebraska-Oregon

A plus-one would not be without controversy, but it would allow for the fact that most years produce more than two teams with a legitimate claim to a title-game appearance. Rarely can the #5 team ever claim a legtimate claim, so until the school presidents are ready to go to an actual playoff (never, I'm guessing) a plus-one is absolutely the best (and most realistic) alternative.

Troy said...

@dr. zoom, thank you for putting in one sentence what took me 5 paragraphs. Fantastic point.

Brian in Oxford said...

I laughed when I saw a comparison between OrdoƱez's and Rodriguez's stats this morning.

Those TWO were supposed to be Theo's great accomplishment back in December 2003....A-Rod for Manny and Magglio for Nomar.

Todd said...

Again, I just think it has to be next to impossible for someone's parent to fully accept that it was completely their child's fault so soon after they died. I think he's probably in a stage of denial right now, and it's gotta be hard to accept that your kid could've messed up so badly.

The court will take the proper action, and dismiss at least the potential suit against the truck driver. I don't know the laws in Missouri about bars' responsibility to stop serving a person they feel is intoxicated, but I can't imagine that lawsuit will go anywhere either.

If you feel anger toward Hancock's dad, at least know that the lawyers filing the suits aren't working for free, so he's spending a lot of money.

CMFost said...

Early nomination for the Mike and Mike just shut up award: Josh Hancocks Father. I know your hurt that your son got killed. But he drank and choose to get behind the wheel of the car and drive. It is not the bars fault they did not make him drink, it not the tow truck drivers fault he was just doing his job and it not the broken down cars fault, cars break down. The only person to blame is Josh for making the stupid decision to get behind the wheel after drinking.

MoL said...

Mike Fratello called, he wants the mid-90s Cavs back.

Memo to LeBron: You're a superstar and the face of the franchise, when you see your team struggling it is your job to put them on your back and get the job done. It's great that you are an unselfish ballplayer but when your teammates can't hit the shots, what is the point in passing to them?

This series show's the Cavs' glaring need for a complementary player for LeBron. He can't do it all himself.

The heroin sheik said...

As much as Seo sucked last night for the rays he still got the W so therefore he was a stud in my eyes.

With the braves being my childhood sweetheart I was really happy to see Smoltz get 200. Him, Glavine, and Maddux have always played the game the right way. I would love to see all three of them in the HOF with that braves cap next to Leo Mazzone but I could see Maddux in a Cubs hat. Smoltz owns a bar in tampa and when he is there he is enlightening to talk to. Him for Doyle Alexander has to be one of the top five most lopsided trades ever.

As much as the Hancock lawsuit pisses me off, if they are all seperate lawsuits he has a good chance of winning against the restaurant at least he would here in FL. A place I worked back in college hosted an Xmas party where a patron got wasted and drove home drunk. He died as well as someone he hit. Both families sued my work for serving someone who was intoxicated and I was out of a job. With the entire responsible vendor program you can get screwed for serving someone a beer if you have seen them take a pill even if it is an aspirin if they get hurt after drinking. Fucking litigious mindsets that people have now just shows the inherent selfishness most people have. It is a bad sign for society in general. Sorry Im so circumloquatious and long winded today.

CMFost said...

Boxing needs to learn what makes the UFC pay per views great. It is not all about one fight. Take the De La Hoya v Mayerweather fight if you paid 50 buck to get that fight that is all you saw, just that fight. Where as with UFC not only are you going to get Liddell and Jackson but you will get 6-8 more great fights and which would you rather pay for. 1 crappy fight or 6-8 good to great fights.

Todd said...

Does anyone know what the laws are in Missouri in terms of liability of bars/restaurants toward serving someone who is overly intoxicated? In other words, is there something in the law there that explicitly states that bars/restaurants are forbidden to serve people additional alcohol if they feel the person is already overly intoxicated, and a potential risk to themselves and others?

Because if there is something like that, and there are witnesses that could verify that Hancock were overly intoxicated and at a potential risk to himself and others, and yet saw that the bar/restaurant served him more alcohol anyway, then there might be something to that.

That being said, I think the proper action in that instance would be a revokation of a liquor license from the city/state as versus wrongful death damages awarded to the Hancock family.

(I'm in full agreement though that the stalled tow truck driver is obviously not at fault)

CMFost said...

wow I think the sheik just commented with the longest most intelligent word ever for this blog

GuyInTheCorner said...


You have something wrong.

What happend was a guy was driving a car and someone cut him off. He spun out and his car stalled. A tow truck driver pulled over to help him.

Hancock's dad is suing the bar, the tow truck company, and the driver who got spun out and stalled.

Brad said...

@Todd - You're assuming that all of the lawsuits get dismissed in court, but what if they don't? The truck driver and the owner of the stalled car have to go through the aggravation of being a part of this suit when they could just as easily been killed by Hancock.

I think the anger that most people have towards this lawsuit is the fact that it is even being pursued. There should be no lawsuit!

I agree that the lawyers are partly to blame for this, but it's still a decision that Hancock's father is making. He could just as easily tell his lawyer that filing a lawsuit against innocent people will NOT bring his son back.

There should be a law stating that anyone involved in illegal activity cannot file any lawsuits in relation to that activity.

CMFost said...

Todd - being a former bartender I only know Massachusetts law and our law is pretty clear if you think someone is to drunk don't serve them as that makes you and the bar liable but the problems comes is there are people that are very hard to tell if they have had to much.

Todd said...

I'm awarding an honorary stud award to Sheik for using the word "circumlocutious"... and an honorary dud for misspelling it!

dwk said...

Sometimes I think we all need to be reminded...LeBron James is still only 22 years old.

The Cavs stunk and lost as a team last night.

I think people are too hard on LeBron.

Todd said...

@Guy, thanks for the clarification. In that case, I think there's no way that potential suit against the driver of the car that spun out and tow truck driver would go anywhere. I know we all hear of various frivolous lawsuits all the time, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of these cases don't see the light of day.

Also, the drivers of the car that spun out and the tow truck driver would likely counter-sue if they do incur any legal costs and the case were deemed frivolous. (Though I don't know what the laws in Missouri are in regards to that process)

And for the record, I'm not saying that I don't think Josh Hancock was not the one responsible, he undoubtedly was, I'm just saying that there could be a potential case against the bar if the laws and conditions were such that the bar can be held legally responsible.

Brian in Oxford said...

Yeah, that word's longer than "Saltalamacchia"

pootietang said...

@todd: a wrongful death suit is handled by an attorney on a contingency basis, usually 33% of settled, 45% if actually litigated. hancock's father is not spending a dime. he was probably taken advantage of by some slick attorney. but he still needs to wake up and realize what he is doing.

Todd said...

Is that right Pootie? I would think it would completely depend on the lawyer, in that some would handle it on a contingency basis, but others would still bill on an hourly basis, first meeting, etc. But I don't have any experience working on/dealing with wrongful death suits, so it's entirely possible then that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

CycleDan said...

Josh Hancock's father epitomizes everything wrong with the US legal system. Nobody is to blame. It is always someone else. It wasn't the bartender's fault. The tow truck driver was fine as well. I wouldn't have hit him - because I wouldn't have been driving drunk.

It was (drumroll please) 100% John Hancock's fault and nobody else. If we wanted to hand out blame to someone else then it goes to Hancock's parents for not raising their son better and not helping their son when he had a problem. So should we sue Hancock's father?

As a parent, I can say that the worst thing by far that can ever happen to you is for something to bad to happen to your kid. So I still feel for his father but his father has the wrong people targeted. When you point your finger, you have three more pointing back at you as Dire Straits said.

CMFost said...

Where is Danielle when we need some legal thoughts??

CMFost said...

This more of a Boston questions but is anyone else pissed at Colin Cowdung(herd). Not only does he rip Celtics fans for being cry babies but then he does not have the balls to come on the air in Boston to defend himself. The wimp blew off Felger last night on ESPN890

Lawdog1214 said...

Is there any way Portland entertains a trade offer from Cleveland?

Take our entire team other than Lebron for the #1 overall. We'll play with Lebron and Oden and 3 hobos from the streets of Cleveland

pootietang said...

@todd: yes, it is contigency, just like a personal injury lawsuit. fortunately or unfortunately, i am in the insurance business, so this is my area of expertise. i don't want to cut mr. hancock any slack because he(and the estate) are the actual plaintiffs and have to sign off on the suit, but this is totally lawyer driven.

Troy said...

@todd, I can't imagine someone in Hancock's dad's place would use anyone other than the contingency-fee guys. He has to know its a longshot and I'm sure wouldn't pour his own money into it. But I guess that means there has to be a lawyer out there who thinks this thing has enough of a shot to take it on contingency...

Troy said...

It was (drumroll please) 100% John Hancock's fault and nobody else.

I think some people would say it was 90% Hancock's fault, and maybe 10% the bartender's fault. And if a jury saw it that way, the dad could get some money... depending on that state's rule. (But don't hold me to that: I haven't gotten my Torts grade back yet and for all I know I could have failed...)

ndyanksfan05 said...

No - it was 100% Hancock's fault...bartenders are not police officers. If bartenders cut anyone off that "appeared" drunk bars would be out of business (at least any bar I went to). Think about any Friday/Saturday night - everyone in the bar is probably over the legal limit...people need to take responsibility for their actions. We live in a country that is supposed to be free, I don't want the bar tender to tell me when and what I can drink...guess what, I am an adult, I can make that decision myself. Just like i can make the decision to not drink and drive. And if I am an idiot and do something stupid drunk (like go home with some skank or god forbid drive) I will deal with the repricusions because I am an f-ing adult and should take responsibility for my own actions...I realize its shitty to say, especially because driving drunk can have serious effects on others, but unless the guy was falling out of his chair and puking on himself, a bartender is going to keep serving him because a)that's their job and b)he is an adult and should be able to drink as much as he wants. If he is a schmuck and drives then its his own damn fault.

The heroin sheik said...

Thank you cmfost but truth is when I was 10 I went to Ireland and instead of kissing the blarney stone I made out with it and I haven't shut up since. I think I am just in love with my own voice/ written thoughts.

CMFost said...

just listening to the radio and there is a report out of St. Louis that the bartender actually offer to get hancock a cab or a van and Hancock said no thanks I can just walk back to the team facilities and then left and got in his car. there goes the lawsuit if that is true.

Danielle said...

@ cmfost

Here I am.

Of course, I am not an attorney in Missouri, so I cannot speak to the individual laws of that state.
In New Hampshire, the client has an absolute right to have a case be billed hourly. If for some reason, i.e. they think liability is clear and the lawyer will not have to work that hard, they can request an hourly fee. Lawyers in NH are not allowed to force a contingency fee agreement. Of course, in this case, it is more beneficial for a contingent fee.

I think it's iffy on the bar situation..on one hand I think, if this would go to trial, there would be slippery slope issues where a jury and/or judge may not want to extend liability to all establishments who serve alcohol and one of their patrons ends up killing himself.

Also, as the attorney for the bar, I would argue that Josh assumed the risk of drinking and driving, therefore their liability should be lessened. Possibly if Josh had killed someone else, who had not been drinking, they may have a better case. Since the only person who died was the actual drinker that would be my argument. Also, was it the alcohol, the speeding, the talking on the cell phone or the marijuana that caused the accident? Just arguements I would bring up...doesn't mean they would win.

I believe the suit against the truck and the car drivers will be thrown out. There was no foreseeability that someone would be drinking, speeding, talking and possibly smoking pot and ram into the back of the tow truck. And again, Josh assumed the risk of his behavior.

Sorry this was long, and it probably made no sense. Just some opinions.

The heroin sheik said...

yeah it should have been circumloquacious not circumloquatious. When your as long winded as I am you tend to not pay attention to spelling especially when you know a word is going to come up as misspelled even when it is right.

The heroin sheik said...

Anyone see how the winner of the 96 Tour De France admitted to using EPO during his winning ride. Is there any other sport where you are convinced everyone is on drugs as much as with cycling?

Mikepcfl said...

Danielle, how much are you going to charge us for all that legal counsel? j/k

Danielle said...

the bill is in the mail ;)

Todd said...

Thanks Danielle for the clarification re: billing. That does make sense.

@NDYanks, while I agree to a certain extent with your "adults" argument, I think there is a public safety issue there too. Not to say that we know for sure that the bar knew that Hancock was overly intoxicated, driving, etc., but I do think for reasons of public safety that it is absolutely necessary to require bars to exercise caution/judgment in cases where someone is obviously way, way over the limit. Let's face it, if you get shitfaced, a normally rational persons' judgment can become dangerous.

So while I agree that the person is overwhelmingly responsible, I also agree with Danielle that it'd be a whole different circumstance if an innocent bystander were hurt as a result. So for reasons of public safety, I think there has to be some liability to bars who serve people who are obviously overly intoxicated (and to define that is a whole other matter I realize).

No comments: