Talk about angry misguided lawsuits.

The tragedy: Josh Hancock, the late St. Louis Cardinals pitcher, was killed a couple of weeks ago when he went to a restaraunt, got drunk, got in his car, and drove down the highway while talking on his cell phone, and hit a tow truck that was parked while helping a motorist with a disabled vehicle.

Worse tragedy: Hancock's father, Dean Hancock, is suing for unspecified damages. Why? Because the accident clearly wasn't the younger Hancock's fault. He was forced into this situation. Obviously. This is what the father is conteding. For this reason he is suing the restaurant owner, who was not there that night, and the restaurant manager, who was there when he was being overserved.

Further, he is suing the towing company whose truck he hit, presumably for being so foolish as to answer a call from a driver stuck on the highway late at night. Also, he is suing the tow truck driver, presumably for parking the truck while assisting the motorist. Oh, and he's also suing the motorist for being negligent enough as to let his vehicle break down on the highway in the middle of the night. Everybody knows that they are responsible for keeping their vehicles in top running condition so as to accomodate the drunk drivers that might swerve out of control and hit them.

Why should Hancock's father stand to gain from this? Hancock was an adult making a grown-up decision. I should have as much right to sue for this as he does.

Why should he limit his list of defendants? Why not include the beverage maker? He didn't get drunk on water. How about the other motorists vehicle manufcturer? If they made better automobiles, then they wouldn't break down on the side of the road, and drunks would have one less target to hit. Why not the cell phone manufacturer? Cell phones are know to be quite distracting to drivers, drunk or otherwise.

But hold on. What if - and this is a big if - the accident was totally Hancock's fault? What if HE was to blame for overordering? After all, to be overserved, one must overorder in a restaurant. It wasn't a party, it was an establishment where you have to ask for a drink, and pay for it. You can't overserver someone refusing another drink.

Oh, and what if the tow truck had a way to clearly indicate that it was there, so it could be seen at night on the side of the road - say some sort of light bar on top. That would send a clear signal to other motorists not to, say, plow into it.

And what if the driver of the disabled vehicle could not predict when his engine, consisting of hundreds of moving parts, operating at high temperatures for long periods of time, would spontaneously fail. Of course, this is all conjecture. All of these factors were clearly a conspiracy to infringe on the right of Mr. Hancock to drive a deadly weapon while under the influence.
If I was a defendant, (and this is the cool part about being a blogger), I would countersue the father. On what grounds? Not teaching his child the difference between right and wrong. Josh Hancock did something wrong, deadly wrong. The fortunate part of this entire tragedy is that he did not kill or hurt anybody other than himself.

He screwed up. His family is grieving. That is bad and can't be undone. But blaming everyone other than he who had ultimate responsibility is an outright sin. Shame on the lawyer Keith Kantack bringing this suit.

PS - If drinking and driving is against the law, why do bars have parking lots? Just wondering.