Court OKs drive-thru shooting suit

AP ^ | December 9, 2006

[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.

[ByteMercenary]

If one were to accept the supposition that a drive-up style establishment should provide consumer protection, just how far back from the drive-in window is the 'cocoon' to go? One car, three, five? The entire facility including the parking lot? The left turn lane out on the street where cars are waiting to turn in to the restaurant's parking lot? Where, legally, does the restaurant's responsibility terminate?

I agree the judge is just bumping this up the line, but when does common sense enter the picture? And are not lower court judges supposed to 'filter' the SLAPP and crap legal activity out of the system?

[Lurker]

Has anyone sued UAL because the airlines did not protect the passengers and public from 9/11?

Yep.

L

[tiger-one]

Thanks, I read a lot but not all.

[Lurker]

You don't hear much about it buy my money says the lawsuit will put AA into bankruptcy.

They haven't got a prayer of winning.

L

[tiger-one]

I'd like to see where "The Big Dig" [MA] lawsuits sinks MA.

[Farmer Dean]

Do the courts expect fast food places to establish a security perimeter?How?Hire an army of paramilitary types?Beginning to sound a lot like South Africa to me.

[meyer]

Well, I guess we can now say goodbye to drive-thru service. How on earth could Taco Bell or Burger King or anybody else be expected to provide security for such a situation?

Alternatively, the price of a '6-pack' of tacos just went up to $15.00.

[therut]

See you point out the problem. Our TORT laws need and could be changed. They are insane.