Um, shouldn’t the POLICE be responsible if this was a dangerous location? Unless it was McDonalds employees who did this, how is McDonalds responsible for the criminal acts of others? If the cops (with their resources and weapons) can’t control the criminal element in this neighborhood, how are the people working at McDonalds supposed to do any better?? Bogus verdict.
I agree Don. If the Police had 200 calls on this location because of unruly violent crowds and did not control it, College Station should be the one sued. A private business is not responsible for violence at a location. That is what the city and county are responsible for, public safety.
I agree with you on this one. If any McDonald’s employees had stepped in, then McDonald’s would be getting sued for that. Likewise, if they had hired security personnel, they’d still be facing lawsuits. The lawyers would be saying that they should have left it up to the proper authorities. These days, if you just follow someone, you’re in trouble.
A private business is responsible for violence on their property. They should have had security cameras and called the authorities before the beating got out of control. They should have requested increased patrols by the police. There were many things they coulda, shoulda, woulda done and they didn’t. That’s why we’re in business. To sell them GL coverage.
“They should have had security cameras and called the authorities before the beating got out of control.”
A) a security camera wouldn’t have stopped this from happening. B) Do you think cops instantly appear when you call them? Do you know how fast a beating can “get out of control”? C) You can request all the extra patrols you want but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get them. Cops have absolutely no duty to help or provide their services unless a special relationship is formed (i.e. security for a politician at a speaking event.) I’ll refer you to Warren vs. District of Columbia.
Destro – since you have been in insurance all of five minutes, I’ll excuse your ignorance on this topic. Having been in this business 34 years, I’ve seen scores of these types of claims and let me tell you, there is negligence on the property owners’ part. Right, wrong, or indifferent that’s just the way it goes.
August 5, 2014 at 5:45 pm
Destro says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Probably, but the cops still have no obligation to help people if there isn’t a special relationship formed.
August 6, 2014 at 9:26 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Cops have no obligation to help people? Isn’t that their job? To protect and serve?
August 4, 2014 at 2:17 pm
Huh! says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
How about laying the blame at the feet of the unruly crowd? I agree the police should be there to do their job, but we cannot blame the police or retail establishments for what the general public chooses to do. Even the patrons share a portion of the blame for choosing to enter a known danger zone. Everyone needs to take a share of the blame on this one.
Cops do have an obligation to protect and serve since our taxes support them. A private business is not in business to protect the public from hoodlums. Their obligation is to notify the cops there is a problem and then stay the hell out of the way and let the cops do their job.
For someone supposedly in the business for 30 years, you know very little about tort liability. Businesses may not be in the business to protect the public, but they certainly have a higher duty of care to protect the public while they are an invitee on their premises.
Libby, you are talking about a guy that calls 911 on himself just so he can see some men in uniform. They usually leave when he asks them to cuff him, mace him, and taze his undercarriage.
If this monkey trial and its ridiculous verdict is not a cry for drastic tort reform, I don’t know what is. The implications here include not only the desertion of cause & effect, but points to the motive that it’s all about the money regardless of accountability. The local jury, like so many of our political elections, voted themselves the money. Meanwhile the lawyers, right or wrong, successful or unsuccessful, are laughing all the way to bank- what a racket.
The victims may not have known that it was dangerous. I have difficulty blaming the victims in this one. I see a serious problem for McDonalds as Don’t Call says. Can the Police be sued or is that prohibited by law/ordinance? If so, maybe McDonald’s was the only entity that they could target. I would not want to insure this location.
Libby – agreed on invitees but if this location had the reputation it did, they there is the assumption of risk to consider. And what, if anything should the owner’s done? Secured permits to carry? Get involved in the melee?
Surveillance cameras, security guards, increased police patrols, ban loitering in the parking lot. There are any number of things they could have done. I’m not saying those things would absolutely have prevented this from happening, but from a liability standpoint doing nothing was definitely the wrong call. Thus the $27M judgement.
And I don’t think any reasonable person would assume they are going to be beaten to death when they go out for a hamburger. If that were a reasonable assumption, then that’s even more reason for McDonald’s to have done something.
What reasonable person would go out for a hamburger and see security forces stationed on the parking lot and inside? That should tell a person all they need to know.
August 6, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You really are a moron, aren’t you?
August 6, 2014 at 3:17 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And Libby, you are really an imbecile. The next time you go to McDonalds, round up a cop and have him provide you with an armed escort.
August 7, 2014 at 9:22 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I know it’s been 100 years since you were in college, Agent, but it’s not unusual to see off-duty policy or security guards at fast food locations in college towns.
I think I’m the one with 34 years claims experience here and if you don’t think hospitality businesses don’t get sued on a regular basis for security-related incidents (assaults, rapes, etc.) you’re out of your mind. And they always lose.
August 4, 2014 at 3:00 pm
Crain says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Great comment Libby! I guess my question is how do they accomplish the task? Do they hire security guards (as they have little authority, no guns, and cannot enforce law). Do they hire Black Ops guys (that would get lawsuits and no insurance)? I really just have difficulty understanding how they can protect themselves that well from this (short of closing the business).
There is at least one McDonald’s in Chicago (the former rock & roll McD’s–not sure what they call it now) hires off-duty Chicago police officers as private security for just this reason.
So yes, there is the expectation of safety, and other franchises have stepped up to provide a safer eating location.
Well, I can see those Big Mac prices going right through the roof with employees demanding $15 per hour to work and the restaurant having to hire extra security, cameras etc.
Great insult Libby. You outdid yourself. Actually, we have several nice, new McDonald’s in our town, none with the Police stationed in their parking lot or inside and no trouble. If there was some trouble brewing, the Police would be there to take care of it.
No, we don’t have our Christmas party there. We have ours in a reserved room at our insured’s fine dining restaurant and it is too bad you and Planet don’t have that available in your cheapskate agency.
August 6, 2014 at 3:40 pm
txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
LOL!!
August 6, 2014 at 3:53 pm
txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“we have several nice, new McDonald’s in our town, the best in the county. They won the neatest playground 4 times running. I insure those McDonald’s and the franchisee if a good man. We were in the same class together during our third go around with 4th grade.”
“We have ours in a reserved room (whites only) at our insured’s fine dining restaurant, they are the best in the county and he supports the best Pop Warner team this side of Arlen.
There was always a police officer stationed at my college’s mcdonalds on weekend nights (when things tended to get rowdy). Now, I don’t know if McDonalds set that up or the local police officers decided to station someone there, but either way, this death could have been prevented, especially since there was a history of violence at that location.
Do you suppose that 200 calls to Police were considered “crying wolf” too many times and the Police chose to take it lightly? This is on College Station, not McDonalds. The location should be closed and re-opened in a safer neighborhood.
You have no knowledge that it’s not preventable. The fact of the matter is McDonald’s, despite knowing of history of violence at this location, took no steps to avoid or prevent future violence. This is on them.
reminds me of Gabriel “Fluffy” Iglesias talking about the time he got pulled over right after leaving a Krispy Kreme. He still had a box of donuts on his lap when the cop came up to his window and said, “Son, do you know why I pulled you over?”
This is a case of criminal liability, not tort liability. Then, the poor choice made of driving an injured person to the hospital involves another bad decision. Tragic, but if McDonald’s is held liable for this, it is not because our legal system is working properly.
You’re pretty off the mark Truth. This is both a criminal and a civil matter. And are you actually blaming the victim for attempting to get an injured person to the hospital? McDonald’s has liability in this matter. Argue the judgement, but not the verdict.
No one would fault the victim for attempting to get the injured person to the hospital, but it would seem that running a red light would be considered a major factor in her death-the fault of the driver, not McDonalds- which might serve to reduce the award.
Perhaps, but the attorney’s theory is “but for” the incident at McDonalds, the girl would not have been driving to the hospital. I agree there is negligence on the part of the driver for running the red light, though.
Well then “but for” if they ate at home it never would have happened. Or should we blame the zoning board for approving a potential dangerous location?
A legal system tweaked by lawyer-politicians to create more options for lawsuits?
August 5, 2014 at 10:46 am
GenXUnderwriter says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You just can’t underwrite for assault and battery these days. If this kind of thing would happen at a McDonald’s in College Station, TX, it could happen anywhere. The days of a typical bar brawl are gone. Now people are getting the crap beat out of them for no apparent reason.
Looks like a simple cost of doing business. McDonald’s or their franchisee should purchase adequate SMP or Commerical Umbrella liability coverage for these types of adverse verdicts. Nothing unique about this verdict. Just last year a jury in St. Louis awarded $25 million against Jack in the Box to an assault victim. (1122-CC00629 – ALI AZIZ ETAL V NUNAMSKER FAMILY LP II ET AL (E-CASE). In the interests of justice, the court reduced the judgment to $20.5 million, citing comparative negligence since the victim reportedly started the fight.
Why not have Ronald McDonald hired to protect every McDonald’s? He looks non threatening and when the hooligans start with their beating, knifing of innocents, he could step forward and pull out his 9MM and put them face down in the lot until the Police get there. Simple solution to thuggery.
Especially the Willard Scott version of Ronald McDonald. He could also give elderly birthday shout outs too. Happy 97th Agent, back to you Bryant Gumble.
Um, shouldn’t the POLICE be responsible if this was a dangerous location? Unless it was McDonalds employees who did this, how is McDonalds responsible for the criminal acts of others? If the cops (with their resources and weapons) can’t control the criminal element in this neighborhood, how are the people working at McDonalds supposed to do any better?? Bogus verdict.
I agree Don. If the Police had 200 calls on this location because of unruly violent crowds and did not control it, College Station should be the one sued. A private business is not responsible for violence at a location. That is what the city and county are responsible for, public safety.
I agree with you on this one. If any McDonald’s employees had stepped in, then McDonald’s would be getting sued for that. Likewise, if they had hired security personnel, they’d still be facing lawsuits. The lawyers would be saying that they should have left it up to the proper authorities. These days, if you just follow someone, you’re in trouble.
A private business is responsible for violence on their property. They should have had security cameras and called the authorities before the beating got out of control. They should have requested increased patrols by the police. There were many things they coulda, shoulda, woulda done and they didn’t. That’s why we’re in business. To sell them GL coverage.
“They should have had security cameras and called the authorities before the beating got out of control.”
A) a security camera wouldn’t have stopped this from happening. B) Do you think cops instantly appear when you call them? Do you know how fast a beating can “get out of control”? C) You can request all the extra patrols you want but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get them. Cops have absolutely no duty to help or provide their services unless a special relationship is formed (i.e. security for a politician at a speaking event.) I’ll refer you to Warren vs. District of Columbia.
Destro – since you have been in insurance all of five minutes, I’ll excuse your ignorance on this topic. Having been in this business 34 years, I’ve seen scores of these types of claims and let me tell you, there is negligence on the property owners’ part. Right, wrong, or indifferent that’s just the way it goes.
Probably, but the cops still have no obligation to help people if there isn’t a special relationship formed.
Cops have no obligation to help people? Isn’t that their job? To protect and serve?
How about laying the blame at the feet of the unruly crowd? I agree the police should be there to do their job, but we cannot blame the police or retail establishments for what the general public chooses to do. Even the patrons share a portion of the blame for choosing to enter a known danger zone. Everyone needs to take a share of the blame on this one.
Cops do have an obligation to protect and serve since our taxes support them. A private business is not in business to protect the public from hoodlums. Their obligation is to notify the cops there is a problem and then stay the hell out of the way and let the cops do their job.
For someone supposedly in the business for 30 years, you know very little about tort liability. Businesses may not be in the business to protect the public, but they certainly have a higher duty of care to protect the public while they are an invitee on their premises.
Libby, you are talking about a guy that calls 911 on himself just so he can see some men in uniform. They usually leave when he asks them to cuff him, mace him, and taze his undercarriage.
just what we need. Obamacare in every household, a cop in every fast food joint.
If this monkey trial and its ridiculous verdict is not a cry for drastic tort reform, I don’t know what is. The implications here include not only the desertion of cause & effect, but points to the motive that it’s all about the money regardless of accountability. The local jury, like so many of our political elections, voted themselves the money. Meanwhile the lawyers, right or wrong, successful or unsuccessful, are laughing all the way to bank- what a racket.
The victims may not have known that it was dangerous. I have difficulty blaming the victims in this one. I see a serious problem for McDonalds as Don’t Call says. Can the Police be sued or is that prohibited by law/ordinance? If so, maybe McDonald’s was the only entity that they could target. I would not want to insure this location.
The cops would not be successfully sued. Warren vs District of Columbia.
Invitees have an expectation of safety and security and the owner of the premises has a duty of care. That’s a cornerstone of tort liability.
Because there had been prior violence at this location, it makes the duty of care that much higher for the owner.
Libby – agreed on invitees but if this location had the reputation it did, they there is the assumption of risk to consider. And what, if anything should the owner’s done? Secured permits to carry? Get involved in the melee?
Surveillance cameras, security guards, increased police patrols, ban loitering in the parking lot. There are any number of things they could have done. I’m not saying those things would absolutely have prevented this from happening, but from a liability standpoint doing nothing was definitely the wrong call. Thus the $27M judgement.
And I don’t think any reasonable person would assume they are going to be beaten to death when they go out for a hamburger. If that were a reasonable assumption, then that’s even more reason for McDonald’s to have done something.
What reasonable person would go out for a hamburger and see security forces stationed on the parking lot and inside? That should tell a person all they need to know.
You really are a moron, aren’t you?
And Libby, you are really an imbecile. The next time you go to McDonalds, round up a cop and have him provide you with an armed escort.
I know it’s been 100 years since you were in college, Agent, but it’s not unusual to see off-duty policy or security guards at fast food locations in college towns.
I think I’m the one with 34 years claims experience here and if you don’t think hospitality businesses don’t get sued on a regular basis for security-related incidents (assaults, rapes, etc.) you’re out of your mind. And they always lose.
Great comment Libby! I guess my question is how do they accomplish the task? Do they hire security guards (as they have little authority, no guns, and cannot enforce law). Do they hire Black Ops guys (that would get lawsuits and no insurance)? I really just have difficulty understanding how they can protect themselves that well from this (short of closing the business).
There is at least one McDonald’s in Chicago (the former rock & roll McD’s–not sure what they call it now) hires off-duty Chicago police officers as private security for just this reason.
So yes, there is the expectation of safety, and other franchises have stepped up to provide a safer eating location.
Well, I can see those Big Mac prices going right through the roof with employees demanding $15 per hour to work and the restaurant having to hire extra security, cameras etc.
Too bad. There goes your employee’s Christmas party.
Great insult Libby. You outdid yourself. Actually, we have several nice, new McDonald’s in our town, none with the Police stationed in their parking lot or inside and no trouble. If there was some trouble brewing, the Police would be there to take care of it.
No, we don’t have our Christmas party there. We have ours in a reserved room at our insured’s fine dining restaurant and it is too bad you and Planet don’t have that available in your cheapskate agency.
LOL!!
“we have several nice, new McDonald’s in our town, the best in the county. They won the neatest playground 4 times running. I insure those McDonald’s and the franchisee if a good man. We were in the same class together during our third go around with 4th grade.”
“We have ours in a reserved room (whites only) at our insured’s fine dining restaurant, they are the best in the county and he supports the best Pop Warner team this side of Arlen.
What’s a Christmas Party?
Jon said it better than I could have.
There was always a police officer stationed at my college’s mcdonalds on weekend nights (when things tended to get rowdy). Now, I don’t know if McDonalds set that up or the local police officers decided to station someone there, but either way, this death could have been prevented, especially since there was a history of violence at that location.
You have no knowledge if this is preventable.
Do you suppose that 200 calls to Police were considered “crying wolf” too many times and the Police chose to take it lightly? This is on College Station, not McDonalds. The location should be closed and re-opened in a safer neighborhood.
You have no knowledge that it’s not preventable. The fact of the matter is McDonald’s, despite knowing of history of violence at this location, took no steps to avoid or prevent future violence. This is on them.
This would never happen at a donut shop
too funny. That’s 4 for you.
reminds me of Gabriel “Fluffy” Iglesias talking about the time he got pulled over right after leaving a Krispy Kreme. He still had a box of donuts on his lap when the cop came up to his window and said, “Son, do you know why I pulled you over?”
“Because you could smell it?” said Gabriel.
good stuff.
You are correct, that is 4 likes Ralph, keep that up and they are going to force you out of jawjaw (did I spell it correctly?)
This is a case of criminal liability, not tort liability. Then, the poor choice made of driving an injured person to the hospital involves another bad decision. Tragic, but if McDonald’s is held liable for this, it is not because our legal system is working properly.
You’re pretty off the mark Truth. This is both a criminal and a civil matter. And are you actually blaming the victim for attempting to get an injured person to the hospital? McDonald’s has liability in this matter. Argue the judgement, but not the verdict.
No one would fault the victim for attempting to get the injured person to the hospital, but it would seem that running a red light would be considered a major factor in her death-the fault of the driver, not McDonalds- which might serve to reduce the award.
Perhaps, but the attorney’s theory is “but for” the incident at McDonalds, the girl would not have been driving to the hospital. I agree there is negligence on the part of the driver for running the red light, though.
Well then “but for” if they ate at home it never would have happened. Or should we blame the zoning board for approving a potential dangerous location?
A legal system tweaked by lawyer-politicians to create more options for lawsuits?
You just can’t underwrite for assault and battery these days. If this kind of thing would happen at a McDonald’s in College Station, TX, it could happen anywhere. The days of a typical bar brawl are gone. Now people are getting the crap beat out of them for no apparent reason.
And if you outlaw Big Macs, only outlaws will have Big Macs.
LOL!
I wonder why this wasn’t investigated as a hate crime. The news articles all very carefully tiptoe around the issue by describing a ‘mob of youths’
There’s no such thing as a hate crime when it comes to violence against white people. That’s just par for the course.
In the words of the great Bob Barker, “Don’t forget to spay and neuter your Texican”
Looks like a simple cost of doing business. McDonald’s or their franchisee should purchase adequate SMP or Commerical Umbrella liability coverage for these types of adverse verdicts. Nothing unique about this verdict. Just last year a jury in St. Louis awarded $25 million against Jack in the Box to an assault victim. (1122-CC00629 – ALI AZIZ ETAL V NUNAMSKER FAMILY LP II ET AL (E-CASE). In the interests of justice, the court reduced the judgment to $20.5 million, citing comparative negligence since the victim reportedly started the fight.
Fucking wow…
I wonder how long until every fast food employee is armed with a taser gun and trained to neutralize people.
At the minimum wage rate that fast food employees make (save for Portillo’s–they take care of their people)?
I’d say somewhere on the leeward side of never.
And if they were? A security firm would pay them $4.00/hour more and they’d jump ship. :)
Where was Grimace when we needed him?!
Why not have Ronald McDonald hired to protect every McDonald’s? He looks non threatening and when the hooligans start with their beating, knifing of innocents, he could step forward and pull out his 9MM and put them face down in the lot until the Police get there. Simple solution to thuggery.
Especially the Willard Scott version of Ronald McDonald. He could also give elderly birthday shout outs too. Happy 97th Agent, back to you Bryant Gumble.