Denny's shooting settlement

[Dave Workman]

Monday’s announcement of the multi-million-dollar settlement in King County of a lawsuit filed against the Denny’s restaurant chain after a shooting at a Kent Denny’s in 2007 – a settlement made for $13 million prior to a jury verdict that awarded more than $46 million to the plaintiffs – raises some serious questions about corporate liability and personal safety.




<broken link removed>



Or try this:



<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[hapuna]

Yeah Dave I am still not sure I get it??? Is it just because it happened at Denny's? I don't see exactly what Denny's was or was not supposed to do? Why is the number of times they called the police in the past an issue. There seems to be a lot of info missing here?

 

[spengo]

Probably one of the "victims" decided to see if he could make some money off what happened.

 

[Dave Workman]

Yeah Dave I am still not sure I get it??? Is it just because it happened at Denny's? I don't see exactly what Denny's was or was not supposed to do? Why is the number of times they called the police in the past an issue. There seems to be a lot of info missing here?

The number of times police were there in the past might suggest to the jury that the management knew there was a problem, yet did nothing about it; i.e. hire security to make people behave, prevent trouble, "show a presence" ...that sort of thing.

I don't make this stuff up; I've seen it in the past. Like having bouncers in a tavern or security at a popular dance club...same kind of thing. A showing of proactive planning

 

[Dave Workman]

Probably one of the "victims" decided to see if he could make some money off what happened.

Hey, you didn't read the column did you? The main victim here was permanently paralyzed by this bonehead and one of the others was wounded in the leg pretty badly and her husband got stuck with a tone of medical bills. Those people are definitely victims, by any definition.

The dilemma here is that it is not clear what Denny's could have done to prevent this short of hiring guards to keep the drunks out.

And I'm not sure thats really enforceable by a court.

 

[billdeserthills]

I hope Denny's will appeal, this could be applied to almost any business where someone gets shot right?

 

[spengo]

Hey, you didn't read the column did you? The main victim here was permanently paralyzed by this bonehead and one of the others was wounded in the leg pretty badly and her husband got stuck with a tone of medical bills. Those people are definitely victims, by any definition.

The dilemma here is that it is not clear what Denny's could have done to prevent this short of hiring guards to keep the drunks out.

And I'm not sure thats really enforceable by a court.

Sorry, I did read the article. I was just thinking that Denny's now being victimized by the previous victims. The only reason they are suing Denny's is because the shooter probably has very little money to his name while Denny's, a nation-wide restaurant chain, is a giant cash cow. Too bad their food kinda sucks though.

 

[lonegunman]

I could not get the article to open either. Why do they think it is Denny's fault?

Did a Denny's employee do the shooting? Did Denny's corprate management in some way fail? I thought the majority of these type of places were franchise joints, if so it is the local owner's who should get their pockets picked. According to an article I read they claimed that since the police had been called to that Denny's about once every six weeks over the four years leading up to the shooting. That does not seem out of line for a Denny's that serves hundreds of drunks every weekend.

I am not sure a rent-a-cop could have either stopped the fight or stopped the shooting afterwards. Claiming a rent-a-cop would have been the end all solution to Denny's crime and would have prevented this seems fairly silly. If I was Denny's I'd have hired better lawyers. Sorry the guy got shot but Denny's did not shoot him, Denny's is not doing 60 years in state prison.

Having medical bills does not mean you get to assign blame to people based on their ability to pay. Not in my mind anyway.

 

[74sporty]

Last year, while i was in Germany, my relatives told me that they heard that in America, you can sue people for anything... "what gives you that idea?" i asked. They replied "we heard a lady sued McDonalds after she spilled coffe on herself."

Couldn't argue with that one...

 

[Dave Workman]

I hope Denny's will appeal, this could be applied to almost any business where someone gets shot right?

You didn't read the part right up front where it says there will not be an appeal. That's part of the agreement.

 

[xm193]

If the establishment has had umpteen calls for incidents and gun play before reasonable care would apply....security at the very least

 

[SargentMac]

If the establishment has had umpteen calls for incidents and gun play before reasonable care would apply....security at the very least

Exactly.

 

[Mark W.]

So why weren't the Police sued? they are the Protect and serve bunch not Denny's

 

[billdeserthills]

You didn't read the part right up front where it says there will not be an appeal. That's part of the agreement.

Well then apparently Denny's has too much money & in the future will simply lose everytime anything beyond their control takes place. I think it is a bad choice, but I sure don't have access to Denny's corporate checkbook

 

[travis]

I don't know dennys gun policy, but I think if you deprive people of personal protection in the way of a "no guns allowed" sign it creates a liability on your part. I don't even think there would be a legal leg to stand on (if dennys had a pro gun policy) if an employee whipped out a gun to protect himself and hit other people in the process. That would all fall under the fault of the assailant.

I think it creates a good precedent and will force companies to evaluate how they stand on depriving people the right to self defense.

 

[lonegunman]

So why weren't the Police sued? they are the Protect and serve bunch not Denny's

The Supreme Court has ruled many times over the years that the police have no actual obligation to protect YOU personally, only society in general. If they decide to arrive they are not obligated to actually do anything when they get there. If you recall the Columbine High School shooting, the police sat outside until the gunman died of boredom. When they finally entered the building they forced a student performing first aid on a badly injured teacher to leave the building and actually let the teacher die while they "cleared" the building.

The only way to get the police to show up where I live is to complain about a naked woman lying in the street or a really good looking discount prostitute standing in front of your house.(this usually will result in a "swarm" call and five cars in three minutes) If you use the words gun, assault, robbery, break-in or God forbid murder, you are on your own for at least an hour.

 

[dario541]

Ther are several thing s to consider:

1. Denny's, like all corporations, carries liability insurance. It is usually the insurance company that makes the decision and does the settlement. This is possibly less expensive for the insurers, but it makes the corporation look as though it came up short in this situation. This insurance adds to the cost of doing business. And, now the whole world says that Denny's is to blame whether they were or not.

2. There is a currently a legal theory that if "Someone can afford to pay for another's injuries, he should have to, because he 'can afford it.'" This theory is called the "Deep Pockets Theory." This is another money-sucking scam dreamed up by lawyers. The attornies get dollars, the victims get pennies and EVERYBODY pays! It is like hitting the jackpot or winning the lottery for the victims and their "lucky" lawyers. It has also possibly caused tens of thousands of companies to leave America where they aren't preyed upon by shyster attorneys - most of whom suck the life from the country and give nothing back!

I feel for the victims but the culprits are the ONLY guilty ones here. Denny's is also a victim.

 

[RonS]

I didn't see anywhere in the article where the cops were called when the fight broke out. It seems that may have been a point of neglegance to assume that everyone was safe even though the guy had left the resteraunt.

 

[Dave Workman]

I didn't see anywhere in the article where the cops were called when the fight broke out. It seems that may have been a point of neglegance to assume that everyone was safe even though the guy had left the resteraunt.

Good point. That has never been clear, though considering the area and the time of the incident, it is quite possible that the cops merely did not have enough time to respond because it appears the goon got beat, went directly to his car, came directly back and cut loose. That generally takes a minute or less.

Remember: When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

I concur that Denny's should not be legally liable but someone here pointed out that this was the insurance company's call most likely. On the other hand, if this particular restaurant KNEW it had a problem, at that hour of business, then it would seem there might be an issue of due care and caution. After all, the jury came back with a $46 million award (which I doubt would have stood an appeal, but anything is possible) rather than the $13 million the plaintiffs settled for.

Some very good thoughts going on here.

 

[dario541]

Good point. That has never been clear, though considering the area and the time of the incident, it is quite possible that the cops merely did not have enough time to respond because it appears the goon got beat, went directly to his car, came directly back and cut loose. That generally takes a minute or less.

Remember: When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

I concur that Denny's should not be legally liable but someone here pointed out that this was the insurance company's call most likely. On the other hand, if this particular restaurant KNEW it had a problem, at that hour of business, then it would seem there might be an issue of due care and caution. After all, the jury came back with a $46 million award (which I doubt would have stood an appeal, but anything is possible) rather than the $13 million the plaintiffs settled for.

Some very good thoughts going on here.

I think the reason that juries tend to be so generous with other people's money is that they think that they may some day get a chance to win the "lottery" the same way.