Chrissy Polis to sue McDonalds over beating

[R.D.]

I'm not sure that she has a chance in hell of winning anything. Someone called the police and as far as I know that was their only legal obligation.

I doubt seriously McDonald's employees are trained or required to break up fights.

McDonald's pockets are much deeper than the attackers are

 

[strollingbones]

I'm no lawyer and didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I suspect that legally a person should have a reasonable expectation of safety when they're in a commercial business that's there for the purpose of serving the general public.

Why? That would mean every business that serves the public would be required to have armed guards and that just isn't so. As far as I know, only banks do and that isn't to protect their customers lives as much as it is to protect the money.

ever notice the doorman at some jewerly shops.....he is an armed guard.....

 

[strollingbones]

okay this is not the ok corral boys.....its mickey d's...and yes more should have been done...when my son was younger my favorite weapon when fights broke out....and they would not listen....a cold water hose....outside....they never fought inside

 

[Tank]

I'm not sure that she has a chance in hell of winning anything. Someone called the police and as far as I know that was their only legal obligation.

I doubt seriously McDonald's employees are trained or required to break up fights.

The Mcdonalds employee told the attackers to leave before the police come.

 

[Anachronism]

okay this is not the ok corral boys.....its mickey d's...and yes more should have been done...when my son was younger my favorite weapon when fights broke out....and they would not listen....a cold water hose....outside....they never fought inside

No, it's not the OK Corral, bones. However, when one looks at today's society, I don't know how anyone could go walking around without some form of plan and/or preparation to defend themselves from the threats out there these days. Whether it's in their own home, a McDonalds, walking down Main Street, or anywhere else.

I've been trying to avoid commenting on this, but I think at this point I almost have to.... Yes, something more SHOULD have been done, and if it had been two male employees who witnessed it rather than two women, I wonder if something more MIGHT have been done. I don't know, but it's something that popped into my head when I first saw this story.

Oh, and those Jewelry Store guards are often nothing more than the bank guards discussed earlier. They are much more for show than anything else.

 

[TheBrain]

I'm no lawyer and didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I suspect that legally a person should have a reasonable expectation of safety when they're in a commercial business that's there for the purpose of serving the general public.

Why? That would mean every business that serves the public would be required to have armed guards and that just isn't so. As far as I know, only banks do and that isn't to protect their customers lives as much as it is to protect the money.

ever notice the doorman at some jewerly shops.....he is an armed guard.....

Yes he is, but his job is to protect the merchandise and money, not the customers who get in fights.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not sure that she has a chance in hell of winning anything. Someone called the police and as far as I know that was their only legal obligation.

I doubt seriously McDonald's employees are trained or required to break up fights.

The Mcdonalds employee told the attackers to leave before the police come.

And was fired.

I fail to see that McDonald's bears any fault in this case.

 

[FuelRod]

I'm not sure that she has a chance in hell of winning anything. Someone called the police and as far as I know that was their only legal obligation.

I doubt seriously McDonald's employees are trained or required to break up fights.

The Mcdonalds employee told the attackers to leave before the police come.

And was fired.

I fail to see that McDonald's bears any fault in this case.

Had they ordered first?

 

[Ravi]

The Mcdonalds employee told the attackers to leave before the police come.

And was fired.

I fail to see that McDonald's bears any fault in this case.

Had they ordered first?

I think so...at the end of the video you can see one of the girls coming back to look with a McDonald's bag in her hand.

 

[whitehall]

What difference does it make if it was a hate crime? It was a vicious assault. Would it make any difference if the perps got six years in the slams instead of five? Unless McDonalds encouraged the assault or participated in it or created an environment that encouraged assault I don't think they are liable.

 

[ROBESPIERRE]

The plaintiff must prove that McDonalds emloyees acted negligently. If they notified the police, they did enough. The restaurant is a public place and the employees have no control over who walks in and what they do without notice.

 

[GHook93]

Chrissy Lee Polis, the transgender woman brutally beaten by two teens in a Baltimore, Maryland area McDonald’s one week ago, says the attack was definitely a hate crime, and adds she will sue McDonald’s and the McDonald’s employees who stood by, according to reports. The employees were momentarily filmed watching and laughing in a three-minute video, as two teens brutally beat and battered her into a seizure last Monday.

Chrissy Lee Polis: It Was A Hate Crime, I Will Sue McDonald’s | The New Civil Rights Movement

I'm not sure that she has a chance in hell of winning anything. Someone called the police and as far as I know that was their only legal obligation.

I doubt seriously McDonald's employees are trained or required to break up fights.

LOL it was only a matter of time. This case is GOLD! Video of a vicious beating. The employees cheering it on and video taping. The victim going into a siezure. Massive exposure and sympathy for the victim. Victim is a trannie. A large, deep pocket and image concious corporation. The beating started and all happened within McDonald's restaurants. She and her lawyer will get rich off this. It will be in the millions!

 

[JBeukema]

I'm no lawyer and didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I suspect that legally a person should have a reasonable expectation of safety when they're in a commercial business that's there for the purpose of serving the general public.

As opposed to being anywhere else in public? If I am being assaulted by multiple persons and you do not physically intervene, should I be allowed to sue you? Should someone who is unable to stop the assault be punished for not risking his/her own life and welfare in a futile intervention? Who is to judge whether someone should have believed they could have physically stopped an assailant? Should someone have to worry that they must choose between risking their own well-being and being sued?

 

[JBeukema]

I'm no lawyer and didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I suspect that legally a person should have a reasonable expectation of safety when they're in a commercial business that's there for the purpose of serving the general public.

Not when they engage in inflammatory and abhorrent behavior. He may of instigated the incident by using the ladies room.

Taking a piss is inciting violence?

That's bullshit.

 

[GHook93]

I doubt seriously McDonald's employees are trained or required to break up fights.

LOL, there is a big difference from breaking up a fight and filming it, cheering the beating on, instigating it and warming the perpetrators of the cops!

By law businesses owe have certain duties to their patrons. They have a duty to protect (its different for another patron's duty to the victim - they could sit there and do nothing). The duty to protect includes against battery.

The elements of the duty to protect are something like this:
1. The owner (who is vicarious liable for the actions of his employees who are under his control - not independent contractors) had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect his/her patron from harm or assault - I think not filming, instigating the fight, cheering the beating and warning the perpetrators is unreasonable
2. The owner failed to exercise reasonable care to protect his/her patron no doubt see above
3. The assault must be foreseeable to the owner. No doubt this one was
4. The assault occured on the owners premise which he owns and controls . It all took place in the McDonalds
5. The owner's failure to exercise reasonable care caused the resulting injuries/death Seizures at the end are good proof. Injury can be a fear of the public

This won't make it to court.

 

[JBeukema]

Why? That would mean every business that serves the public would be required to have armed guards and that just isn't so. As far as I know, only banks do and that isn't to protect their customers lives as much as it is to protect the money.

Just an FYI...

The guards at banks...many of them NOT armed...are trained to protect the public...not the money. If the customers are not harassed, they are trained to allow the theives to leave without incident.

Guards in bank transfer trucks are trianed to protect the lives of their partners and themselves and thus why they carry weapons. They, too, are trained to "let them flee" if the heist is successful.

In troubled Locations where Security is needed, it should be provided.

Should the Law require it?

What if the business can't afford it?

Should the city/state/fed subsidize it?

 

[JBeukema]

They have no more of an expectation of safety inside the building then they do outside the building. Restaurant employees are not qualified to provide security.

Which is why I carry my own means of self-defense whenever I'm in public. I don't expect other people to protect or defend me. I intend to be ready to do it myself if that unfortuante situation ever occurs.

The guards at banks...many of them NOT armed...are trained to protect the public...not the money. If the customers are not harassed, they are trained to allow the theives to leave without incident.

Guards in bank transfer trucks are trianed to protect the lives of their partners and themselves and thus why they carry weapons. They, too, are trained to "let them flee" if the heist is successful.

Which is why I could never have done any of those types of jobs. Also why I couldn't have ever join a LEO. I'm too much of a believer in Justice over Legality. I couldn't just let the bad guys walk away like that.

I carry as well. And I do believe in the right to do so, but it is an undeniable fact that many who carry concealed would only add to the danger if they ever actually drew their weapon.

Like in Tucson, where a person with a firearm almost shot one of the heroes.

Or in a bank, where drawing your own weapon is likely to result in shots fired, resulting in the death of other customers.

 

[JBeukema]

I suspect McDonald's will settle out of court. For their employees to stand there and not only watch but cheer on the fight and then warn the suspects that the cops are coming and that they better run is inexcusable.

I hate frivolous lawsuits but this one has some merit.

I wasn't sure who was saying what. If the employees did as you said, then they should be charged for their involvement in the attack and aiding in the assailants' evasion of police.

 

[JBeukema]

I'm not sure that she has a chance in hell of winning anything. Someone called the police and as far as I know that was their only legal obligation.

I doubt seriously McDonald's employees are trained or required to break up fights.

The Mcdonalds employee told the attackers to leave before the police come.

The DA will have to determine whether they believe they did so (A) because they wanted to help the assailants escape or (B) because they encouraging the assailants to leave was a means of encouraging them to cease the attack.

 

[Ravi]

I doubt seriously McDonald's employees are trained or required to break up fights.

LOL, there is a big difference from breaking up a fight and filming it, cheering the beating on, instigating it and warming the perpetrators of the cops!

By law businesses owe have certain duties to their patrons. They have a duty to protect (its different for another patron's duty to the victim - they could sit there and do nothing). The duty to protect includes against battery.

The elements of the duty to protect are something like this:
1. The owner (who is vicarious liable for the actions of his employees who are under his control - not independent contractors) had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect his/her patron from harm or assault - I think not filming, instigating the fight, cheering the beating and warning the perpetrators is unreasonable
2. The owner failed to exercise reasonable care to protect his/her patron no doubt see above
3. The assault must be foreseeable to the owner. No doubt this one was
4. The assault occured on the owners premise which he owns and controls . It all took place in the McDonalds
5. The owner's failure to exercise reasonable care caused the resulting injuries/death Seizures at the end are good proof. Injury can be a fear of the public

This won't make it to court.

The cops were called. And I don't see how you can claim that the assault was foreseeable to the owner.