So Shannons could have been liable for the consequences of Hancock's voluntary intoxication if such consequences included harm to others.  But since he injured himself, they can only be liable for his injuries if he was involuntarily intoxicated.  

All your legal talk - it frightens me.  I'm only a caveman!

All joking aside - this is really unbelievable to me.  

I mean, won't the defense team just dredge up all the times that Hancock was out on the town, undoubtedly wasted.  

Great idea, dad.  Drag your son's name through the mud and the much to exact some sick, twisted revenge.  

This is what this country has come to.

There was a huge outpouring of sympathy for the family, but that eroded after the family sued the plow driver and county for damages including Street's likely NBA earnings.  Street wasn't drunk or on the phone like Hancock, but police and the jury ruled he was at-fault for the crash.

In a case like Hancock's or Street's, it's easy to play armchair attorney or moralist and throw around accusations about greed and opportunism.  But I think anytime there is this type of tragedy, especially given the money these athletes make, it's nearly impossible for it not to get messy.  And I certainly don't pass judgment on the family or anyone else directly involved.

When I first heard about the accident, and the tow truck driver said that he had his lights flashing, I wondered if he was telling the truth. He said he had just arrived at tht scene, and that he honked his horn at the last minute to warn the oncoming vehicle, but to no avail. What if he's lying? What if he forgot to turn on the lights until he saw an approaching vehicle? What if he turned them on too late? Nobody knows for sure, but everyone on this forum is apparently willing to take the driver's reported word for it. What if the Hancock family hired a private investigator who interviewed the driver of the broken down vehicle, and learned that the flashing lights didn't come on when claimed?

Second, (and I don't have access to Missouri law with my legal research subscription) is there a regulation requiring tow truck drivers to put out flares or other danger indicators in addition to the flashing lights? If not, there could be a finding of negligence per se. Negligence per se is essentially a presumption of negligence based upon the violation of law, so long as the law violated was enacted to prevent the type of harm that occurred. In this case, if Missouri law requires the lighting of roadside flares, or some other safety precaution that wasn't taken by the tow truck driver, there could be a very good claim for negligence against him. (I'll get to Josh's drunkenness in a minute). Surely such a law would have been enacted to prevent nighttime collisions with tow trucks, as occurred here.

Finally, on the issue of contributory negligence, some jurisdictions have a straight up contributory negligence statute that coldly precludes any recovery by a party that in any way negligently contributed to his own injuries. In a comparative fault jurisdiction, liability would be apportioned. Some states have "pure" comparative fault while others have "partial" comparative fault. "Pure" comparative fault gives the injured party exactly that percentage of his damages that was caused by the defendants (i.e., if Josh was 99% negligent he or his estate could recover 1%). More common is "partial" comparative fault, by which system a state court awards damages ONLY if the negligence of the defendant exceeds that of the plaintiff. So, if Josh was at least 51% responsible for his own injuries (which would be pretty easy to prove with all of the negative factors involved), there could be no recovery against the defendants.

When terms like "fault" are used, it's easy to apply their common, everyday layperson definition. In court, the principle of "fault" is a much more complicated issue.

While it doesn't look good for the Hancocks, let's not pile on and call them out for filing a "frivolous" suit, or for being "everything that's wrong with America". I prefer to be a little more fair-minded, like a jury, for example, and wait for all of the facts to come out before forming opinions and calling people "greedy" or "shameless".