Posted on 02/09/2007 8:13:36 AM PST by Graybeard58
Things were pretty tense in November 2005 at King High School in Tampa. The month was marked with numerous brawls and culminated with a fatal, after-school, gang-related shooting across the street in the McDonald's parking lot.
School officials and police belatedly beefed up security at the school and in the neighborhood. But they moved too late for the victim and the three other teens who were wounded by the shooter, who last week pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
The shootings, naturally, have spawned a lawsuit from one of the wounded, Alexander McKinnie, against ... the police? Don't be silly. The school? Surely you jest. No, he's suing McDonald's for being a bad host and failing to protect him from "reasonably foreseeable criminal acts by third parties," said Mr. McKinnie's lawyer. Even if McDonald's officials had envisioned a premeditated, gang-related shooting in their parking lot, what "reasonable steps" should they have taken to prevent it? The lawsuit, as usual, is silent on that issue.
Still, the trial bar "seeks justice" from McDonald's for injuries inflicted by marauding gangs that even police can't control. Why McDonald's? Not because it's really liable, but because it's a multinational corporation that had more than $3.5 billion in net income last year, making its pockets much deeper than those of the shooter or any other possible defendant.
I would expect that there would be lawyers who would be willing to accept such risk, in exchange for a larger contingency fee, if they expected to win.
If plaintiff's and defendant's legal costs are roughly equal, and if a plaintiff had a 66% chance of winning, a 50% contingency fee would cover both attorney's costs.
There are both good and bad things about the concept of joint and several liability. What is lacking, I think, is the concept that many torts should have limited liabilities associated with them regardless of the damages that eventually result therefrom.
It may well be that either of two tortfeasors in a particular case, each in the absence of the other, might be found liable for $100,000, and yet together they might be found liable for $150,000. I would suggest that in such a case, it might be reasonable to have joint and several liability rules apply to $50,000 while each defendant is individually liable for $50,000. So if one defendant skates after paying $10,000 the most the plaintiff could recover would be $110,000 total.
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.