Posted on 12/09/2006 9:16:38 PM PST by ConservativeStatement
FORT WAYNE, Ind. (AP) -- A woman shot in her car while waiting in a Taco Bell drive-thru can sue the restaurant on grounds that it had lax security, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.
A Wells County judge originally ruled against Sonya Winchell, but the appeals court found Taco Bell had a duty to ensure her safety and a jury should decide whether it tried to do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at southbendtribune.com ...
Say goodbye to the .99 cent value menu.
What exactly is a fast-food restaurant suppose to do safety-wise while you're sitting in it's drive-through to ensure no nut drives by and shoots you? These judges have no common sense.
What is it with these stupid judges?
Put the shoe on the other foot: suppose Taco Bell has a security guard at every restaurant. Now what if said Security Guard is able to disarm a shooter?
You got it: Taco Bell gets sued for the Rent A Cop's "racism" or whatever. Bank on it.
I cannot fathom trying to imagine how much lsd these judges had to take to make this ruling
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Here is more info that was edited from the article in the South Bend paper.
If she knew all this, why go to the Taco Bell at that time of day?
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061209/NEWS02/612090404/1025/rss02
Winchell contended in her lawsuit that Taco Bell was aware of the potential for violence because it closed the store's interior at midnight, had installed a closed-circuit video-monitoring system with a panic button and hired off-duty police officers for security.
Her suit also cited numerous police calls to the address in recent years.
Executives at Taco Bell's corporate headquarters in Irvine, Calif., did not respond to a message yesterday seeking comment.
This should have been thrown out unless someone on staff was responsible for the shooting.
We ought to be able to sue the government for every crime committed against us on their property.
"I cannot fathom trying to imagine how much lsd these judges had to take to make this ruling"
It isn't personal, it's business.
I always wear a pinstripe suit for my drive-bys, but I've never sought court approval.
It's navy blue, how can I go wrong?
So cops don't have a legal responsibility to protect you, but a fast food restaurant does? What a country!
LOL x 1,000,000
This is solely an assault on capitalism. The courts have ruled that police do not have a duty to protect citizens. The courts will want to take your guns away claiming citizens are to inept to defend themselves. Now they they want to kill the capitalist by letting the lawyers steal his money. It's absurd to think a food vendor is supposed to protect the citizens when the police don't. Soon the only choice a free people will have is to defy the oligarchy of Marxists and Aristocrats.
Huh?
The number of courtfuls of jack-in-the-box clowns out there is scary.
She's N-U-T-S.
It's official, that court's lost common sense.
I guess I'll be the dissenter on this thread. The judge merely allowed the suit to go forward; he didn't pre-judge the outcome, and not did did he define the extent of security that Taco Bell must provide; Taco Bell's lawyer can argue that it's satisfied by good lighting, a visible employee in the booth, and other measures short of a security guard.
The plaintiff was an invitee visiting a public restaurant, and it's black letter tort law that a business owner owes a duty to protect invitees against dangers. But, concededly, the more gray area here is whether that duty extends, not merely to physical detects in the property that may cause injury, but also to the criminal conduct of others. However, the opposing lawyers can argue about whether the duty was fulfilled by citing foreseeability of the crime, whether it's a high or low-crime area, etc.
Has anyone sued UAL because the airlines did not protect the passengers and public from 9/11? Has anyone sued the city of Boston, State of MA, for not protecting the passengers and the public from 9/11? Same for NYC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.