One of those ways would be to have another car come into your lane, forcing you off the road into the median wall, resulting in your car coming to rest in the left lane and unable to move.

In fact, that is what happened here.

Secondly, no one has alleged that the driver of the car was intoxicated or talking on a cell phone. We know for a fact that Hancock was.

Thirdly, it is important to note that the suit alleges that Hancock was served drinks at the restaurant and became intoxicated “involuntarily.” This accusation is important because Missouri has a statute that prevents frivilous suits like this unless the intoxicated driver became intoxicated against his will.

Think of it this way: imagine that two drunk drivers hit each other.

Which would be an interesting discussion for another thread. As it does not apply to this case, it is an attempt to move the goalposts without regards to the facts.

Absolutely not. You are responsible only if your negligence causes the collision.

I don’t mean to suggest that Hancock should escape liability entirely. All I’m saying is that liability should be shared if (and only if) other people acted carelessly as well.

Here’s why I’m taking the comparative side: Suppose the other driver, whose car Hancock hit, had also been drinking and talking on his cell phone, and that’s what caused him to hit the median wall. There aren’t that many ways in which someone who’s driving responsibly and attentively hits a median wall hard enough to leave his car undrivable in the left lane of traffic. As I see it, barring Hancock’s estate from suing for part of the damages would allow the other driver to escape any responsibility for his behavior.

Think of it this way: imagine that two drunk drivers hit each other. Which one is responsible? Or do they share responsibility? That’s all I’m trying to say. I don’t mean to suggest that Hancock is not responsible at all; I’m just suggesting that the actions of others may have contributed to this accident.

I also recognize that Hancock Sr.’s suit may get thrown out of court. It may be that he doesn’t have any facts to suggest that anyone else acted carelessly. I’m just not prepared to dismiss the suit as frivolous from the outset.

I doubt that, very much. The good old “basic speed law” is that you drive no faster than conditions warrant. If visibility is low, or the lines-of-sight are insufficient, then you must slow down!

Dean Hancock is far more responsible for his son’s death than anyone named in this fisking lawsuit!

We have no clue as to the visibility, lines of sight, intervening traffic.

Yes, Tom we don’t know any of these things but we do know that Josh Hancock was drunk.

Toxicology tests made public Thursday from Hancock’s autopsy reconfirmed his blood alcohol at 0.157 — almost twice the legal maximum to drive — and revealed no other drugs in his system.

Who forced Josh Hancock to drive when he was drunk? If you are driving drunk don’t you think that makes you responsible for an accident that occurs? However, not only was he drunk, but he was also speeding.

Police said their investigation showed he was not only drunk but driving 68 mph in a 55 mph zone

and talking on a cell phone when he died. They said the wrecker’s warning lights were flashing.

If you are driving drunk and speeding and inattentive don’t you think that makes you responsible for an accident that occurs? If not, just what would it take for you to believe that Josh Hancock was at fault?

Why should the other driver be so easily permitted to shift his responsibility onto others? And for that matter, why shouldn’t we put incentives on the tow truck driver to set out flares or other indicators at a distance that easily allows for safe stopping or avoidance? Punishment of the morally guilty is for the criminal law; the civil tort system ought to be about discouraging dangerous behavior — in everyone.

And David, I think, does a disservice to his readers by changing the fact of the other car’s location without noting that he has done so.

And Ted, as the linked article also points out, toxicology tests found no marijuana in Hancock’s system. So yes, forget the pipe.

No, Tom, not in a legal sense. Unless the driver hit the side of the road and spun out into your path as you were driving by, you are required to be able to drive in such a manner that you are able to stop in time to avoid hitting a car that is stopped in the road. If you are driving at highway speed and suddenly traffic in front of you slows to a stop, you are responsible if you hit the car stopped in front of you.

It is interesting how we are always trying to find someone else to be responsible for what happens to us. If we get into an accident it must be someone else’s fault. What I am waiting for is for someone to file a lawsuit against a company when they get into an accident after being required to work overtime. After all if the person had left from work at his usual time he would have avoided the accident. Yes I know that the result of the action has to be foreseeable, but I am sure that an enterprising lawyer can get around that inconvenient fact. For example the lawyer can charge that by working late the person was more tired and therefore less able to avoid the accident. In other words there is nothing that happens that one cannot find some tenuous thread of events that conceivably has some bearing, however small, on what happens afterwards.