Lawsuit Started Against McDonald's... Is McD's Liable?

CallMeKate

Well-known Member
Location
Mid-Atlantic US
In a nutshell, a homeless man attacked a customer at the drive-thru. Man's wife tried to help him and got beaten which lead to her being on life support and then she later died. McD's workers stood and watched it happening and didn't do anything, including calling 9-1-1. Husband is now suing McDonald's.

McDonald's workers watched 'vagrant' kill woman in drive-thru, refused to call 911: Suit
 

Last edited:
Someone should have helped, though I'm not sure if McDonald's is legally responsible?

When I was DoorDashing in Albuquerque a homeless man approached my car while waiting in a drive-thru line.
I rolled up my window and he begin pulling on my door handle (door locked) and tried to force it open. I rolled my window down a few inches, held my breath, closed my eyes, and maced the crap out of him;)

Problem solved. I had other several other weapons at my disposal which I always carried.

I had been at that restaurant many times and knew the employees who told me the police had been called multiple times for the same issues. Two days after this incident they told me the same individual stabbed someone in the drive-thru line:(
 

The article was copied from the suing parties lawyers so clearly a one sided version of the events, kind of like the summation in the op. The fall that caused the brain injuries was deemed accidental by the LA County DA's office. And the employees are merely min wage kids working for "pocket money" so in some cases you get what you paid for.

Comment copied.

"The problem is that seeing a homeless person begging or throwing a tantrum in the parking lot of your store doesn't seem to reasonably warrant an emergency call, the employees basically failed to predict that he would fatally attack someone, as he did, but they're McDonalds employees, not actuaries or forensic psychiatrists. As an aside, for that matter, there are basically no lawsuits against psychiatrists who had a future murderer or mass-murderer as a patient at some point, and failed to predict their actions."
 
Saw one report where the police were called to that location over 100 times.

It could come down to McDs enforcing a no loitering or soliciting ordinance or policy. If the killer had been chased from property on that or on other occasions the murder probably wouldn't have happened.
 
Last edited:
On the surface, it doesn’t sound like McDonald’s would be at fault but @WhatInThe makes a good point that it could come down to corporate policy, past actions, an assumed duty to provide a reasonably safe business premises, etc…

In the end, it may not matter if McDonalds was at fault.

Sometimes major corporations pay a modest settlement just to make the noise and publicity go away.
 
Maybe McDonalds will settle out of court just to avoid publicity, but it wouldn't be some million dollar settlement. Maybe the lawyers have got something on McDonalds, and could sue for more. Not enough information here to know for sure.
 
In a nutshell, a homeless man attacked a customer at the drive-thru. Man's wife tried to help him and got beaten which lead to her being on life support and then she later died. McD's workers stood and watched it happening and didn't do anything, including calling 9-1-1. Husband is now suing McDonald's.

McDonald's workers watched 'vagrant' kill woman in drive-thru, refused to call 911: Suit
Some states have a law requiring people to 'render aid' or call for assistance.
All states should have this law.
 
This seems like it was a rough area and staff and customers were used to nuisance vagrants. If the defence can show that this behaviour was common, the staff will likely be cleared.

McDonald’s will pay a token undisclosed amount to settle.
 
I believe McDonald's should be responsible for the safety of their guests on their premises
There was a stink a few years ago where McD's was found not accountable for how the *franchise* owners treated their employees and the wages they paid, etc. Makes me wonder if this would fall under the same because of being franchises? 🤷‍♀️ Maybe the wrong party is being sued.
 


Back
Top