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