Author Topic: frivolous?  (Read 1628 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6036
frivolous?
« Topic Start: May 24, 2007, 05:45:25 PM »
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2881602

Han**** has barely reached room temperature and we are now seeing a lawsuit suing everybody under the sun. The only thing missing is a suit against whatever type of car company it was whose car broke down.

I like the lawyer who says "he had a drink the whole time in the bar". BFD, he could have been nursing one drink the whole time.


Re: frivolous?
« Reply #1: May 24, 2007, 05:54:30 PM »
Good luck on that one, Mr. Han****, yeah, we'll see if that works.

Offline Senators2005

  • Lake Ridge, VA
  • Posts: 12263
  • Go Natsssssss!
    • http://nationalsnation.spaces.live.com/
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #2: May 24, 2007, 05:55:24 PM »
I hate it when people take responsibility for people actions away from the persons that commit crimes.  Like it's the bar's responsibility to make sure nobody drinks too much.  I feel sorry for the parents, but if I was the judge, I'd throw this lawsuit in the garbage.

Offline 2k6nats

  • Posts: 9267
  • All in on the Nats
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #3: May 24, 2007, 05:57:23 PM »
Man, I hate people suing.  It's the most wimpy thing a person could do.  Of course, if the person hurt you seriously, or caused major damage to your house or belongings, that's a different story.  But come on America, take some damn responsibility.

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6036
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #4: May 24, 2007, 06:43:38 PM »
I hate it when people take responsibility for people actions away from the persons that commit crimes.  Like it's the bar's responsibility to make sure nobody drinks too much.  I feel sorry for the parents, but if I was the judge, I'd throw this lawsuit in the garbage.

i guess i never really thought about feeling sorry for his parents, but if I did, I'd revoke it

Offline NatsAddict

  • Posts: 4095
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #5: May 24, 2007, 08:27:51 PM »
Too bad his dad wasn't in the car with him.

Offline Senators2005

  • Lake Ridge, VA
  • Posts: 12263
  • Go Natsssssss!
    • http://nationalsnation.spaces.live.com/
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #6: May 24, 2007, 10:39:56 PM »
Why do you guys rag on his parents?  They didn't do anything wrong.  I mean, yeah I understand not agreeing with him on the lawsuit...but I'm sure he's grieving for his son.  People do unwise things when they are upset and grieving.  I feel sorry for anyone who loses a child...regardless.

Offline 2k6nats

  • Posts: 9267
  • All in on the Nats
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #7: May 24, 2007, 10:48:42 PM »
Why do you guys rag on his parents?  They didn't do anything wrong.  I mean, yeah I understand not agreeing with him on the lawsuit...but I'm sure he's grieving for his son.  People do unwise things when they are upset and grieving.  I feel sorry for anyone who loses a child...regardless.

Yep.  Kids should outlive their parents; it's terrible when it happens the other way around  :(

Offline NatsAddict

  • Posts: 4095
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #8: May 24, 2007, 10:52:54 PM »
Why do you guys rag on his parents?  They didn't do anything wrong.  I mean, yeah I understand not agreeing with him on the lawsuit...but I'm sure he's grieving for his son.  People do unwise things when they are upset and grieving.  I feel sorry for anyone who loses a child...regardless.

That's still  no excuse for what his dad is doing.  He's trying to hurt truly and absolutely innocent people.  And, the worthless piece of dreck is doing it for money that he knows will not provide any benefit other than to his bank account.  This, I feel, has nothing to do with grief.  He's trying to injure others who he knows had nothing to do with his adult son's irresponsible and accidental suicide (speeding, drunk, marijuana, no seat belt, talking on his cell phone, reckless endangerment of the lives of untold others, refused the offer of a cab ride, etc).  He's trying to steal their money, and he is  no better than a burglar.

Offline Senators2005

  • Lake Ridge, VA
  • Posts: 12263
  • Go Natsssssss!
    • http://nationalsnation.spaces.live.com/
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #9: May 24, 2007, 10:57:42 PM »
I think it has everything to do with grief.  The father is trying to find a culprit in his son's death...because he can't come to grips with the fact that it was his son's decisions that killed him.  But I don't think the suit has any merit and if I was the bar owners I wouldn't be worried about it.

Offline NatsAddict

  • Posts: 4095
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #10: May 25, 2007, 07:25:28 AM »
I think it has everything to do with grief.  The father is trying to find a culprit in his son's death...because he can't come to grips with the fact that it was his son's decisions that killed him.  But I don't think the suit has any merit and if I was the bar owners I wouldn't be worried about it.

I am sincerely sorry for you loss. 

But, as you noted, there is an extreme difference between the two cases.  Han****'s dad isn't looking for a culprit.  He's going after those he knows had nothing to do with his son's death, and even those whose innocent lives his son's irresponisibility put at extreme risk.  He is not looking for those responsible.  He is looking for dollars. 

I wish a judge had the ability to immediate suspend the license of, or disbar, an attorney who brings such frivilous suits.

Still, while grieving, you've also noted a distinct difference. 

Offline Senators2005

  • Lake Ridge, VA
  • Posts: 12263
  • Go Natsssssss!
    • http://nationalsnation.spaces.live.com/
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #11: May 25, 2007, 09:56:08 AM »
I am sincerely sorry for you loss. 

But, as you noted, there is an extreme difference between the two cases.  Han****'s dad isn't looking for a culprit.  He's going after those he knows had nothing to do with his son's death, and even those whose innocent lives his son's irresponisibility put at extreme risk.  He is not looking for those responsible.  He is looking for dollars. 

I wish a judge had the ability to immediate suspend the license of, or disbar, an attorney who brings such frivilous suits.

Still, while grieving, you've also noted a distinct difference. 
I agree with what you are saying...the lawyers are just milking the parents in the hope of making a quick buck and they are just making the whole process alot more painful than necessary.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 30616
  • Hell yes!
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #12: May 25, 2007, 10:38:59 AM »
I think it has everything to do with grief.  The father is trying to find a culprit in his son's death...because he can't come to grips with the fact that it was his son's decisions that killed him.  But I don't think the suit has any merit and if I was the bar owners I wouldn't be worried about it.

Sens, the problem is it costs a lot of money to defend yourself in such a suit.  What sort of counsel do you think the tow truck driver can afford?  This can be ruinous to small business people.

Offline nats2playoffs

  • Posts: 20170
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #13: May 25, 2007, 10:53:54 AM »
..I wish a judge had the ability to immediate suspend the license of, or disbar, an attorney who brings such frivilous suits....

If a lawsuit or motion is truly frivolous, with claims that have no legal merit or cannot be proven, the judge can impose sanctions on the party that filed it.  They could be required to pay the legal fees of the other parties.  I'm not so sure that would happen in this case, but it depends on the legal precedents in that state and the facts.

I have heard about legal rulings against bars regarding drunk driving, but they seem to be extreme cases.  The manager of the Rockville Hooters made the news when he called the police, to stop a drunken father from getting in his car with his baby.  I'm guessing that the attorneys are alleging that even a sober driver would have gotten killed, because of negligent conduct by the parties with a disabled vehicle on the wrong side of the road.  I don't know the circumstances, but if you were driving the legal limit on a curved road, and suddenly came up on someone on the wrong side of the road, you could be killed, even with your seat belt on.  The father likely knows these details and was at the scene.  But yes, he could just be lashing out to deal with his grief.

I have a feeling that the lawyers figured that they had enough of a case to avoid sanctions, and strong enough to at least get an out-of-court settlement from one or more of the parties.  It would be interesting to see the papers filed, if the suit gets posted on The Smoking Gun.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/search/search.html

Offline NatsAddict

  • Posts: 4095
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #14: May 25, 2007, 05:30:59 PM »
The American Dream:  Get hit by a Greyhound Bus, chartered by the Yankees, in a McDonalds parking lot, while wearing a Sony walkman that prevented you from hearing the bus horn, wearing Oakley sunglasses that prevented you from seeing the bus, and wearing a Red Sox cap which makes it a hate crime.

Offline nats2playoffs

  • Posts: 20170
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #15: May 25, 2007, 05:45:01 PM »
The American Dream:  Get hit by a Greyhound Bus, chartered by the Yankees, in a McDonalds parking lot, while wearing a Sony walkman that prevented you from hearing the bus horn, wearing Oakley sunglasses that prevented you from seeing the bus, and wearing a Red Sox cap which makes it a hate crime.

Please follow these instructions to avoid injury.

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7808
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #16: May 25, 2007, 05:53:22 PM »
The American Dream:  Get hit by a Greyhound Bus, chartered by the Yankees, in a McDonalds parking lot, while wearing a Sony walkman that prevented you from hearing the bus horn, wearing Oakley sunglasses that prevented you from seeing the bus, and wearing a Red Sox cap which makes it a hate crime.

With Paris Hilton driving the bus.

Offline expos96

  • Posts: 1718
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #17: May 28, 2007, 07:22:54 AM »
I agree with what you are saying...the lawyers are just milking the parents in the hope of making a quick buck and they are just making the whole process alot more painful than necessary.

And what if he had hit somebody (or more) while driving? And survived the accident al the way?
Brr.

In Europe it is normal to take your own responsibility for your actions.
That's because you're an adult, you should think before you act.
I know it can be difficult, but this for sure prevents a lot of non-cases in court over here....

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 30616
  • Hell yes!
Re: frivolous?
« Reply #18: May 29, 2007, 05:00:59 PM »
Not Far Enough


by Jim Baker (Baseball Prospectus)
 May 29, 2007

Mr. Keith Kantack, Esq.
Tupelo, MS

Dear Mr. Kantack:

I have read with interest the news stories regarding the lawsuit you have filed on behalf of Dean Han****, father of the late Josh Han****, the St. Louis Cardinals pitcher. All I can say is: bully for you! I am writing to applaud your actions, but also to politely suggest that you have not gone far enough, not nearly far enough, in assigning blame for Mr. Han****'s demise.

Suing the restaurant where he was served is certainly a good start. The towing company and the driver of the disabled vehicle? Slam dunks. (I have often said that people in broken-down vehicles and the service trucks that go their rescue are one of this nation's greatest menaces. It is my hope that your case brings this incredible hazard out in the open by means of the hot-lit glare of a civil trial.) The nerve of that motorist allowing themselves to be cut off like that! Shameful and irresponsible.

I beg you, though, Mr. Kantack: please do not stop with just these defendants! They are merely links in a long chain of responsible parties from whom the full measure of retribution must be exacted.

Let's start with the beverages imbibed by the deceased. Certainly they didn't spring into existence without any help? Yes, they were purveyed by Mike Shannon's restaurant, but how did they get there? That's right: a driver brought them. Sue him. Sue the manufacturer of the truck that delivered the alcohol to Shannon's place (not to mention the manufacturers of the vehicles belonging to Han****, the disabled driver and the tow truck). What were they thinking when they made these conveyances? Naturally, the company that created the adult beverage that mysteriously found its way into the son of your client must also be taken to legal task. (I would also suggest you find a way to sue the descendants of the elected officials responsible for repealing the 18th Amendment.)

And where were the other patrons of Shannon's when Mr. Han**** was allowed to leave the establishment in no condition to drive? What is their role in this? Innocent bystanders? I think not. One or more of them should have physically restrained Mr. Han**** and forced his keys from him. I would advise that you get your staff to assemble as complete a list of patrons as possible from that night, using credit card receipts as a starting point, and add them to your roster of the responsible.

Regarding the marijuana that was found in Mr. Han****'s vehicle after the crash: where did it come from? I believe that an expert could, after rigorous testing, tell you the origin of the drug. If it is from Mexico, say, then the government of that nation should be added to your list of targets. If it is imported, where was our government in the interdiction process? Clearly out to lunch. Put the DEA on your hit list as well. If the drugs were grown locally, then you must direct your attentions at local law enforcement who have clearly failed to keep illegal drugs out of the cars of motorists.

And what of the cell phone on which Mr. Han**** was speaking at the time of his demise? What is its culpability in all this? Well, for one thing, why was it not equipped with a sensor that could detect the user was intoxicated? This is clearly negligence on the manufacturer's part. Such a sensor could send a signal to a transponder in the starter of the owner's vehicle and not allow it to engage. The problem here is obvious: cell phone and vehicle manufacturers are so focused on profits that they forget about people. They should be made to pay for their negligence in a court of law.

Why was the street not lit better so that the late Mr. Han**** could see what was ahead? Was it a case of not enough lighting in the area? If so, then it is the Missouri Department of Transportation that must taste the wrath of your sword of justice. If lighting was in place but was faulty, then the manufacturer of said lighting must pay as well.

And lastly, why are you letting the St. Louis Cardinals off the hook so easily? How are they not to blame? After all, it was they who gave Mr. Han**** a position on their team–-a position that allowed him to gain a feeling of invincibility that certainly contributed to his doom. If Mr. Han**** were a common laborer, would he have felt this same sense of entitlement to a good time and an accompanying belief that the actions of scores of negligent people could never be the cause of his undoing? Of course not. If he had only been allowed to be humbled by rejection from that organization, or the Red Sox, Phillies and Reds before them (note: attach them as well), then he would be alive today.

I seek no thanks from you, Mr. Kantack, and desire no credit for these suggestions. My satisfaction will come from the knowledge that justice is done; that everyone who is culpable is made bankrupt via damages and legal fees and that you and your client will be well compensated. You are doing a noble thing, Mr. Kantack. Godspeed!

Yours truly,

A.F.o.D.W.R
(A Fan of Doing What's Right)

Jim Baker is an author of Baseball Prospectus. You can contact Jim by clicking here or click here to see Jim's other articles.