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.
"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
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.
So cops don't have a legal responsibility to protect you, but a fast food restaurant does? What a country!
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.
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
Alternatively, the price of a '6-pack' of tacos just went up to $15.00.