8 Comments

And her lawyer figures that McDonalds will settle this nonsensical lawsuit to save money over the legal fees required to defend it, giving her and her lawyer a windfall. This is just another example of why we need “loser pays” to eliminate this sort of nonsense.

Plaintiff knew or should have known by virtue of testimony: “I told him he was an ungrateful bastard,” that she was asking for it. And there you have your cause.

This is incredible. I really, really hope this gets thrown out as frivolous. If this woman claims the McDonald’s and liquor store are attracting a criminal element to her neighborhood, what exactly was she doing there?

She could have defended herself with some McDonald’s overheated coffee!

If she tried to give me some McDonald’s food, I’d probably deck her myself! 😉

My question is, where was her husband when this man was beating the snot out of his wife? It’s hard to tell who’s the real “bastard” in this story.

… and why was she ‘later locked out of the restaurant’?

The police should have known it was a dangerous neighborhood and kept officers there 24/7.

Or was it Dunkin Donuts where police should he stationed? Never mind, sue the police and Dunkin Donuts too. Let the court sort it out.

But I maintain that several nearby piano players are blameless. They did not know what was going on outside the McDonald’s.

I see a contradiction here. McDonald’s got sued because they “failed to provide a reasonably safe place for their customers” but the liquor store got sued when they asked Craig to leave, presumably to make their place reasonably safe.
Are the MacLarens expecting businesses to follow people after they leave, do criminal background checks on people who may not even be customers, or both?