McDonalds employee assaults customer

[commando]

i bet the big winners will be the women who got beat. they will get $$millions$$ from suing McDonald's.

 

[carlfense]

i bet the big winners will be the women who got beat. they will get $$millions$$ from suing McDonald's.

Doubt it.

 

[commando]

i bet the big winners will be the women who got beat. they will get $$millions$$ from suing McDonald's.

Doubt it.

why would you doubt it? some dumb old bitty dumped a cup of coffee on herself and sued mcdonalds and won. these women may have broke the law...but a mcdonalds employee went way to far in his "defense" and put 2 b****** in the hospital. he did it while he was employed at and representing mcdonalds. mcdonalds will probably be found at fault for hiring someone so violent and putting him in place to be interacting and endangering the customers. i dont agree that they should win, i just think it will happen.

 

[carlfense]

i bet the big winners will be the women who got beat. they will get $$millions$$ from suing McDonald's.

Doubt it.

why would you doubt it? some dumb old bitty dumped a cup of coffee on herself and sued mcdonalds and won. these women may have broke the law...but a mcdonalds employee went way to far in his "defense" and put 2 b****** in the hospital. he did it while he was employed at and representing mcdonalds. mcdonalds will probably be found at fault for hiring someone so violent and putting him in place to be interacting and endangering the customers. i dont agree that they should win, i just think it will happen.

Heh.

It sounds like you've read the headlines from that old McDonalds case. It's crazy how often that case is referenced online. If you want to discuss that case revive the old thread from this forum discussing it. If you'd rather discuss this current case . . .

What is your theory of liability for McDonalds? What duty did they breach to these customers? Keep in mind that this is an intentional tort and therefore respondeat superior does not apply.

 

[HeyBurke]

i bet the big winners will be the women who got beat. they will get $$millions$$ from suing McDonald's.

Doubt it.

why would you doubt it? some dumb old bitty dumped a cup of coffee on herself and sued mcdonalds and won. these women may have broke the law...but a mcdonalds employee went way to far in his "defense" and put 2 b****** in the hospital. he did it while he was employed at and representing mcdonalds. mcdonalds will probably be found at fault for hiring someone so violent and putting him in place to be interacting and endangering the customers. i dont agree that they should win, i just think it will happen.

That "dumb old bitty" dumped coffee on herself that was far more hot than it was supposed to be. The coffee gave her terrible burns on her thighs and she had to be hospitalized because of it. The lady also sued McDonald's for money to pay for her medical bills, and nothing more. Think before you type.

 

[carlfense]

i bet the big winners will be the women who got beat. they will get $$millions$$ from suing McDonald's.

Doubt it.

why would you doubt it? some dumb old bitty dumped a cup of coffee on herself and sued mcdonalds and won. these women may have broke the law...but a mcdonalds employee went way to far in his "defense" and put 2 b****** in the hospital. he did it while he was employed at and representing mcdonalds. mcdonalds will probably be found at fault for hiring someone so violent and putting him in place to be interacting and endangering the customers. i dont agree that they should win, i just think it will happen.

That "dumb old bitty" dumped coffee on herself that was far more hot than it was supposed to be. The coffee gave her terrible burns on her thighs and she had to be hospitalized because of it. The lady also sued McDonald's for money to pay for her medical bills, and nothing more. Think before you type.

Lots of misinformation floating around about that case. Few people realize how many times McDonalds was told to lower the serving temperature of their coffee . . . but they insisted that no one drinks their coffee immediately so they had to serve it hot enough that it would still be warm when the customer arrived at home or work. Poor legal strategy. They should have settled for the $17,000 or medical costs that the old woman requested. Hindsight, I suppose.

I know knapplc disagrees with the outcome of this case but if anyone would like to read further here is a quick breakdown of the theories and the facts. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

 

[knapplc]

What is your theory of liability for McDonalds? What duty did they breach to these customers? Keep in mind that this is an intentional tort and therefore respondeat superior does not apply.

Hey, hey, HEY, hey, hey! This is a family forum. Watch the language.

 

[HeyBurke]

i bet the big winners will be the women who got beat. they will get $$millions$$ from suing McDonald's.

Doubt it.

why would you doubt it? some dumb old bitty dumped a cup of coffee on herself and sued mcdonalds and won. these women may have broke the law...but a mcdonalds employee went way to far in his "defense" and put 2 b****** in the hospital. he did it while he was employed at and representing mcdonalds. mcdonalds will probably be found at fault for hiring someone so violent and putting him in place to be interacting and endangering the customers. i dont agree that they should win, i just think it will happen.

That "dumb old bitty" dumped coffee on herself that was far more hot than it was supposed to be. The coffee gave her terrible burns on her thighs and she had to be hospitalized because of it. The lady also sued McDonald's for money to pay for her medical bills, and nothing more. Think before you type.

Lots of misinformation floating around about that case. Few people realize how many times McDonalds was told to lower the serving temperature of their coffee . . . but they insisted that no one drinks their coffee immediately so they had to serve it hot enough that it would still be warm when the customer arrived at home or work. Poor legal strategy. They should have settled for the $17,000 or medical costs that the old woman requested. Hindsight, I suppose.

I know knapplc disagrees with the outcome of this case but if anyone would like to read further here is a quick breakdown of the theories and the facts. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

I watched a great documentary called "Hot Coffee" and this case was featured in it. Very informative documentary if you're interested in lawsuits.

 

[carlfense]

What is your theory of liability for McDonalds? What duty did they breach to these customers? Keep in mind that this is an intentional tort and therefore respondeat superior does not apply.

Hey, hey, HEY, hey, hey! This is a family forum. Watch the language.

+1

 

[knapplc]

Regarding respondeat superior, if I'm the plaintiff's attorney I'm definitely making the allegation that the employee was defending the store/fellow employees from harm. I think you're going to see that brought up because the women were on the other side of the counter.

Now, since I had to go to Wikipedia to refresh myself on what respondeat superior entails, I'm open to an explanation how that won't work. But that's the angle I'm taking if I'm their counsel - the money isn't coming from the employee, it's coming from Mickey D's.

 

[carlfense]

Regarding respondeat superior, if I'm the plaintiff's attorney I'm definitely making the allegation that the employee was defending the store/fellow employees from harm. I think you're going to see that brought up because the women were on the other side of the counter.

Now, since I had to go to Wikipedia to refresh myself on what respondeat superior entails, I'm open to an explanation how that won't work. But that's the angle I'm taking if I'm their counsel - the money isn't coming from the employee, it's coming from Mickey D's.

You'd have to claim that battery was within the scope of his employment. That should be a difficult argument to win.

 

[knapplc]

Couldn't the safety of the store/other employees be considered a "benefiting the employer" action?

 

[carlfense]

Couldn't the safety of the store/other employees be considered a "benefiting the employer" action?

Probably not. I don't do civil litigation so don't quote me on this . . . but I believe for intentional torts like assault and battery it has to be central to the employment or common in the course of employment. So . . . if the McDonalds employee was a bouncer at a bar, the bar might be liable. If the McDonalds employee was an armed security guard, the company that employed him might be liable. It would be hard to win by arguing that a cashier is expected to beat customers with a metal rod as a normal part of his employment.

 

[knapplc]

Definitely don't think they could win. Earn a settlement, maybe. But not win.

 

[carlfense]

Definitely don't think they could win. Earn a settlement, maybe. But not win.

Maybe. If I were McDonalds I don't think that I would settle that one.

I think a stronger argument might be that McDonalds was negligent in employing a dangerous felon in a position where he worked directly with the public. I think that would be a losing argument as well but probably the better of the two.