Question for all you lawyer types

[MusicMan]

Where does THIS rank on your list of all-time dumbest lawsuits?

I feel for the family, but grieving via suing everyone in the city of St. Louis probably is not the most healthy option.

[JimR]

Where does THIS rank on your list of all-time dumbest lawsuits?

I feel for the family, but grieving via suing everyone in the city of St. Louis probably is not the most healthy option.

what is the dram shop law there? that could have a chance, but suing the driver of the stalled car?

[Holly]

I could see going after the bar, and MAYBE the tow-truck driver, if he was obstructing traffic, but geez... the owner of the stalled vehicle? Maybe HE should sue Hancock's estate for damage to his vehicle? Ridiculous. This looks like some twisted denial. Not sure what they hope to gain from this (other than the bar's issues).

[JimR]

I could see going after the bar, and MAYBE the tow-truck driver, if he was obstructing traffic, but geez... the owner of the stalled vehicle? Maybe HE should sue Hancock's estate for damage to his vehicle? Ridiculous. This looks like some twisted denial. Not sure what they hope to gain from this (other than the bar's issues).

the tow truck guy was protecting his car and had his flashers on.

[Curly]

Left out the automobile manufacturer, the tire company...hell go after the cattle company that supplied the hides for the leather seats, and the feed company that provided the nutrition for said bovine.

[Jacksonian]

I presume that parts of that lawsuit can be dismissed without having to dismiss all of it.  I'm sure Mr. Tolar will be moving to have his part dismissed.

[JimR]

Left out the automobile manufacturer, the tire company...hell go after the cattle company that supplied the hides for the leather seats, and the feed company that provided the nutrition for said bovine.

did not sue the drug dealer?

[Holly]

Yeah, that's why I was hedging with the "maybe." Why do people even bring these kinds of suits??

[Ty in Tampa]

"As the Administrator of Josh's estate, I have a duty to represent Josh's family regarding all of the issues related to his death and the overall administration of his estate, including any legal actions necessary against those who contributed to the untimely and unnecessary death of my son at the age of 29."

I wonder if Josh's estate is a defendant.

[Jacksonian]

"As the Administrator of Josh's estate, I have a duty to represent Josh's family regarding all of the issues related to his death and the overall administration of his estate, including any legal actions necessary against those who contributed to the untimely and unnecessary death of my son at the age of 29."

I wonder if Josh's estate is a defendant.

Massive amount of denial.

I wonder if the stalled car driver is rich.  Some people say they want to know.

[Limey]

Left out the automobile manufacturer, the tire company...hell go after the cattle company that supplied the hides for the leather seats, and the feed company that provided the nutrition for said bovine.

Also omitted Pablo Escobar, Jack Daniels, Mary Jane Stoner and Smith & Wessen.

[Limey]

I presume that parts of that lawsuit can be dismissed without having to dismiss all of it.  I'm sure Mr. Tolar will be moving to have his part dismissed.

If I were the tow truck driver, I'd be filing a huge counter suit requesting massive punitive damages as a result of the tox screen.  That would make the beneficiaries of the estate blink.  Same for the stalled car owner.  The restaurant and owner should counter sue for defamation.

[MusicMan]

The judge should just tell them to get the hell out.

[HudsonHawk]

what is the dram shop law there? that could have a chance, but suing the driver of the stalled car?

Correct me if I'm wrong counselor, but aren't most of these types of lawsuits a third party suing the bar for serving a drunk who later did third party damange?  In other words, isn't the law there to lay responsibility to protect the public from the drunk not to protect the drunk from himself?  Seems it'd be hard to prove that the bar was responsible for a person who gets drunk, refuses a cab ride, smokes some weed, gets on his cell phone and speeds through town. 

[Limey]

Correct me if I'm wrong counselor, but aren't most of these types of lawsuits a third party suing the bar for serving a drunk who later did third party damange?  In other words, isn't the law there to lay responsibility to protect the public from the drunk not to protect the drunk from himself?  Seems it'd be hard to prove that the bar was responsible for a person who gets drunk, refuses a cab ride, smokes some weed, gets on his cell phone and speeds through town. 

That's how I've always understood it.  We could be seeing new law being made here people!

[Limey]

Correct me if I'm wrong counselor, but aren't most of these types of lawsuits a third party suing the bar for serving a drunk who later did third party damange?  In other words, isn't the law there to lay responsibility to protect the public from the drunk not to protect the drunk from himself?  Seems it'd be hard to prove that the bar was responsible for a person who gets drunk, refuses a cab ride, smokes some weed, gets on his cell phone and speeds through town. 

Here's a random article on the subject.  Says that it needs to be an injured third party making suit.

Under dram shop liability laws, a party injured by an intoxicated person can sue establishments contributing to that person’s intoxication...Missouri’s recently revised dram shop law requires proof that the party demonstrates "significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction."

[Bench]

Here's a random article on the subject.  Says that it needs to be an injured third party making suit.

Yeah, those statutes are decided to protect the innocent third party who did nothing wrong but be in the wrong place at the wrong time after the negligent driver left the negligent pub.

[JimR]

Correct me if I'm wrong counselor, but aren't most of these types of lawsuits a third party suing the bar for serving a drunk who later did third party damange?  In other words, isn't the law there to lay responsibility to protect the public from the drunk not to protect the drunk from himself?  Seems it'd be hard to prove that the bar was responsible for a person who gets drunk, refuses a cab ride, smokes some weed, gets on his cell phone and speeds through town. 

yes, but obviously the lawyer thinks the law can be stretched. otherwise, paying someone else's attorneys' fees are in his client's future.

[WulawHorn]

not necessarily on the 3rd party damage.


A guy in my fraternity got overserved, slept on his arm wrong and got a decent sized settlement when all he hurt was himself.  I think that depending on the state and laws you can still have liability as a bar even to injuries to the overserved drunk himself. I think I've seen notice of Texas cases even on point.

Disclaimer- I am not an PI guy or a litigator or anything like that- this is just from what I've seen first hand with the guy that gimped himself and stuff I vaugely remember reading about whenever people scream "tort reform"

I about choked on my coke driving into work this morning when I heard he's suing the stalled vehicle driver and the tow truck driver- ridiculous.

[subnuclear]

A guy in my fraternity got overserved, slept on his arm wrong and got a decent sized settlement when all he hurt was himself.  I think that depending on the state and laws you can still have liability as a bar even to injuries to the overserved drunk himself. I think I've seen notice of Texas cases even on point.

How badly can you hurt yourself from laying on your arm wrong?

[matadorph]

How badly can you hurt yourself from laying on your arm wrong?

i'm curious about that myself. what injury did the frat brother inflict on himself while passed out drunk?

[Navin R Johnson]

I about choked on my coke driving into work this morning when I heard he's suing the stalled vehicle driver and the tow truck driver- ridiculous.

I dont know all the facts surrounding the wreck, but I could definitely envision a scenario where a tow truck could at the very least be partially liable for the accident, ie parked illegally and in a dangerous spot, not having lights on, etc...

[matadorph]

 In other words, isn't the law there to lay responsibility to protect the public from the drunk not to protect the drunk from himself? 

IANAL, but this isn't the case in Texas. Dram shop laws don't just protect the public from the drunk, they also protect the drunk from himself.

[JimR]

I dont know all the facts surrounding the wreck

you should have stopped there.

[Mr. Happy]

How badly can you hurt yourself from laying on your arm wrong?

Not badly enough to sue someone.

[MRaup]

Not badly enough to sue someone.

But its all tiiiiiingly!

Owwwww!

[tophfar]

But its all tiiiiiingly!

Owwwww!

i believe that's what's known as "the stranger".

[HudsonHawk]

i believe that's what's known as "the stranger".

That's what I was thinking...don't most frat guys get drunk and sit on their arms for a specific reason?

[WulawHorn]

Not badly enough to sue someone.

Actually- he permanently damaged his right hand and wrist to the point where his right hand is claw like and he can't move his fingers and what not.  Permanent disablity.

I always thought it was bs and he never should have gotten a dime from the company. After that everyone made sure when someone passed out that they weren't sleeping directly on a body part- but I have to think that this was like a one and a million type situation.  Not saying I agree- but I know that it has happened before, and you can get in trouble as a bar even if the drunk only injured himself.

My understanding of the Hancock case is that the tow truck driver was found to have been properly parked with the correct lights/proceedures all set up.

I don't think he should get a dime, but if you don't like that result talk to your state legislature. Maybe in a comparitive liability state he doesn't recover if he is over 50% at fault.  some states don't have such a mechanism, and if you (hancock) are 80% at fault you can still collect 20% of the verdict from defendants for their fault. I don't remember anymore how common this is, but I think most states have gone to barring individuals from recovery if they are at least 51% at fault themselves.

[Kent's Moustache]

Texas Dram Shop Law does allow the intoxicated driver, along with any third parties injured by the intoxicated driver, to recover from the serving establishment.

Also, Texas is a so-called "50+" state.  A plaintiff is barred from any recovery if the jury apportions 51% or more responsibility to the plaintiff.

For WuLawHorn and any other nerdy law sorts (like myself), the Texas Dram Shop Act is a hot topic of debate in the current legislative session in Austin, as lawmakers decide how to handle the controversial Duenez case, which permits the jury to consider the responsibility of the intoxicated driver separately from that of the serving establishment.  The plaintiff's bar would prefer, conversely, for the serving establishment to be, effectively, vicariously liable for the acts of the intoxicated driver.