Alright by now we have all heard about the dogfighting investigation against Michael Vick, was it wrong certainly, does he deserved to be punished certainly. But was Michael Vicks involvement good for animal rights? I would say yes. I mean prior to this whole spectacle how many people do you think there were out there paying any thought to dogfighting? Not many right, sure most everyone (not named clinton portis) agree that dogfighting is appaling but the majority of the public will never encounter it, and therefore, most people arent really going to be thinking about it. Now all of a sudden the dogfighting issue is on ESPN, CNN, FOX, in the major newspapers, all of a sudden people are confronted with the issue. This gets the general public thinking, does dogfighting happen in my state? Are there laws against it in my state? What are the penalties? If there are laws against it maybe people are looking at it and thinking perhaps the penalties for dogfighting are not severe enough and if there isnt a law then people are thinking... you know our state really should have a law against dogfighting. Public officials realize that the public is paying some attention to the issue and all of a sudden they are thinking we need a law against this, and maybe just maybe next time a bill is introduced penalizing those involved with dogfighting, or some other form of animal cruelty this public official is going to actually pay some attention to it.
More info?
http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/animal_fighting_the_final_round/dogfighting_fact_sheet/
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Always someone else to blame.
Espn recently reported that the father of St. Louis Cardinals pitcher, Josh Hancock has filed a negligence suit against the bar were Hancock had been drinking prior to the wreck, the bar manager, Eddies Towing, the tow truck company, which owned the tow truck Hancock crashed into, Jacob Edward, the driver of the tow truck, and Justin Tolar, the driver of the stalled car for which the tow truck owner was there to tow. The full story can be found at:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2881602
Lets start by looking at the Bar and the Bar manager, who happens to be the bar owners daughter. Under Missouri statute 537.053:
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 . . . knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person.
under this section a person is considered 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.
Josh Hancock was 6'3 215 lbs, so by no means was he a small individual, according to reports Hancocks BAC at the time of the accident was double the legal limit, the legal limit in Missouri is .08 Hancock had been at the bar for 3 1/2 half hours so that means to have been at .16 (double the legal limit) he would have had to have consumed between 10 and 12 drinks. Now lets remember in order to recover under Missouri law requires proof that the bar served alcohol to an individual who showed "significant physical dysfunction" , although Mr. Hancock's B.A.C was double the legal limit to drive the BAC alcohol limits for driving are low on purpose, in order to deter. Could you drive fine at .08, I think most people would agree probably so, at .16 probably not, would you show "significant physical dysfunction" especially in a bar on a Saturday night? Im not sure about that, in addition Mr. Hancock being a celebrity, Im guessing he was getting free drinks so would there be a paper trail? maybe for a few drinks but Im guessing not for all of them. Furthermore, there was marijuana found in Mr. Hancocks car, had he been smoking weed on the drive home?
Next lets look at the tow truck company and driver, the tow truck was there for approximately 15 minutes before the wreck. Was this a reasonable amount of time? How long does it take for a tow truck to get a car hooked up? Would it have been possible to get the car off the roadway right away? Should the tow truck have set out flares or some sort of warning? Is this the normal procedure? 15 minutes just doesnt seem like a lot of time to get out talk to the driver get the car hooked up and get on their way. Although flares do make reasonable sense. What about the driver of the stalled car? We arent told in the report what caused the car to stall? Though, it generally would seem if you were driving down the highway you would have enough momentum that if your car did stall you could get it off the road. But why sue the driver? Presumably it would be in order to get some money from the insurance company, but would the insurance company even have any liability here? After all, the wreck that caused Hancocks death seems to have been between Hancocks automobile and the tow truck. Sure theres a case for negligence against the driver but I wonder what liability if any the driver of the cars insurance would have. In addition, we still have to consider that Hancock was driving intoxicated while on his cell phone and may or may not have been smoking weed.
In addition to all this Missouri is a "pure comparative fault" state meaning that damages will be reduced by the percentage of fault attributable to the Plaintiff, in this case the fault seems rather significant. It seems to me there are a lot of what if's here. Is it really worth it to the family to bring this lawsuit? Josh Hancock had been in the league for 5 years and had made a salary during that time ranging from around $200,000 his rookie year to around $750,000 in 2007. Even if the family ends up getting a couple million dollars out of this is it really worth it? By filing this lawsuit, the family is keeping Hancocks name and the negative circumstances surrounding the accident in the media. Why not instead, just take it for what it is an tragic and unfortunate incident that was essentially caused by some bad decisions on Josh Hancocks part. I think the public remembers Hancock as a world series champion, with a promising young career, who died tragically at a young age. If one looks hard enough one can find a potential lawsuit in nearly any transaction or occurence, however sometimes it's best just to realize our mistakes and move on in life.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2881602
Lets start by looking at the Bar and the Bar manager, who happens to be the bar owners daughter. Under Missouri statute 537.053:
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 . . . knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person.
under this section a person is considered 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.
Josh Hancock was 6'3 215 lbs, so by no means was he a small individual, according to reports Hancocks BAC at the time of the accident was double the legal limit, the legal limit in Missouri is .08 Hancock had been at the bar for 3 1/2 half hours so that means to have been at .16 (double the legal limit) he would have had to have consumed between 10 and 12 drinks. Now lets remember in order to recover under Missouri law requires proof that the bar served alcohol to an individual who showed "significant physical dysfunction" , although Mr. Hancock's B.A.C was double the legal limit to drive the BAC alcohol limits for driving are low on purpose, in order to deter. Could you drive fine at .08, I think most people would agree probably so, at .16 probably not, would you show "significant physical dysfunction" especially in a bar on a Saturday night? Im not sure about that, in addition Mr. Hancock being a celebrity, Im guessing he was getting free drinks so would there be a paper trail? maybe for a few drinks but Im guessing not for all of them. Furthermore, there was marijuana found in Mr. Hancocks car, had he been smoking weed on the drive home?
Next lets look at the tow truck company and driver, the tow truck was there for approximately 15 minutes before the wreck. Was this a reasonable amount of time? How long does it take for a tow truck to get a car hooked up? Would it have been possible to get the car off the roadway right away? Should the tow truck have set out flares or some sort of warning? Is this the normal procedure? 15 minutes just doesnt seem like a lot of time to get out talk to the driver get the car hooked up and get on their way. Although flares do make reasonable sense. What about the driver of the stalled car? We arent told in the report what caused the car to stall? Though, it generally would seem if you were driving down the highway you would have enough momentum that if your car did stall you could get it off the road. But why sue the driver? Presumably it would be in order to get some money from the insurance company, but would the insurance company even have any liability here? After all, the wreck that caused Hancocks death seems to have been between Hancocks automobile and the tow truck. Sure theres a case for negligence against the driver but I wonder what liability if any the driver of the cars insurance would have. In addition, we still have to consider that Hancock was driving intoxicated while on his cell phone and may or may not have been smoking weed.
In addition to all this Missouri is a "pure comparative fault" state meaning that damages will be reduced by the percentage of fault attributable to the Plaintiff, in this case the fault seems rather significant. It seems to me there are a lot of what if's here. Is it really worth it to the family to bring this lawsuit? Josh Hancock had been in the league for 5 years and had made a salary during that time ranging from around $200,000 his rookie year to around $750,000 in 2007. Even if the family ends up getting a couple million dollars out of this is it really worth it? By filing this lawsuit, the family is keeping Hancocks name and the negative circumstances surrounding the accident in the media. Why not instead, just take it for what it is an tragic and unfortunate incident that was essentially caused by some bad decisions on Josh Hancocks part. I think the public remembers Hancock as a world series champion, with a promising young career, who died tragically at a young age. If one looks hard enough one can find a potential lawsuit in nearly any transaction or occurence, however sometimes it's best just to realize our mistakes and move on in life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)