No golden egg for customer suing KFC over pistol-whipping
Kentucky Fried Chicken, purveyor of "finger-lickin' good" poultry, is not responsible for the ass-kickin' bad service an employee provided an indecisive customer in 2007, a federal judge has ruled.
No golden egg for customer suing KFC over pistol-whipping
Kentucky Fried Chicken, purveyor of "finger-lickin' good" poultry, is not responsible for the ass-kickin' bad service an employee provided an indecisive customer in 2007, a federal judge has ruled.
Edward L. Harris of East Oak Lane sued the chicken chain in September 2009 after employee Michael C. Henry pistol-whipped him when he couldn't make up his mind which sides to order along with a 10-piece bucket of chicken, according to the ruling, reported Friday by Courthouse News Service. Harris had gone to the KFC at Adams and Tabor avenues in Olney on Oct. 3, 2007, for an $8 special - a 10-piece bucket, biscuits and two sides, according to Harris' lawsuit. When Harris hesitated on the sides, Henry, who wasn't his cashier, barked at him to "hurry up!" to which Harris responded that Henry wasn't his cashier, according to court records.
What happened next will go down in the annals of Worst Customer Service Ever.
"Well, do you want the f***ing chicken or not?" Harris said Henry asked him, as he took out a gun and held it under the countertop. "I will kick your ass!" he allegedly told Harris.
As a female employee implored Henry to cool it, according to court records, Harris said, "What? You going to shoot me over a bucket of chicken?" He then headed for the exit. But Henry came up behind him, Harris said, and pistol-whipped him in the face. Harris fell, unconscious, and paramedics rushed him via ambulance to the emergency room, according to court records. He suffered a concussion, a black eye, a fractured wrist, memory loss and "rattled teeth" and got eight stitches in his lip, according to the lawsuit.
Harris later sued KFC, complaining that they failed to ensure a safe restaurant by not running a background check on Henry, which would have uncovered several prior arrests, and not noticing that Henry violated the eatery's ban on employees bringing weapons to work.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, in ruling that KFC isn't liable for Henry's attack, said that KFC couldn't have known Henry had a propensity for violence, because his prior arrests were for burglary and such nonviolent offenses.
For the attack on Harris, Henry was found guilty of aggravated assault during a 2009 trial and was sentenced to two to four years in prison and anger management, according to court records. He's now in state prison on a five- to 10-year sentence for an unrelated armed robbery he committed in April 2008, court records show.
The man who got pistol whipped should have gotten some loot, that's insane.— DixonBunz- He absolutely should. But not from KFC. They're no more responsible than you are. Should he sue you?
Comment removed.- So much for providing employment to violent ex-cons.— DonQ
- He should've went to Church's Chicken.— Commentdant_Klink
- Sure, sue the company, not the perpetrator.
- i feel bad for mr. harris. but if the question were asked 'which came first the chicken or the golden egg' the obvious answer is neither.— poorcarole
- KFC, may not have known that "Harris" had a propensity towards violence - however they're certainly responsible for the safety of their guests (and employees). Not sure how the judge could see otherwise. Perhaps the lawsuit needs to be appealed/retried under different language. I'm not one for frivolous lawsuits (which Philadelphia has plenty) - but certainly commonsense dictates that if you're in a KFC, you have the expectation to visit and leave safely.— imustgoih82bl8
-
What did KFC do, or fail to do, to cause this incident? How did they set this course of events in motion, or negligently fail to prevent it?
If you could argue that KFC should have known that Henry was violent, there would be a case. Indeed, Harris's attorneys tried to make exactly that argument. It didn't hold up, because it isn't reasonable.
The civil justice system protects us by punishing those who cause harm, either deliberately or through negligence. It would be a perversion of that system to punish those who did no wrong.
- Lefty,
What are background checks for? The fact that the young man was arrested before would have appeared on a criminal record. Please, it's foolish to think that a thorough background check would not have pointed this information out. It's an absoulte joke! Also, you fail to understand the employer and employee relationship dynamics here in this case. The young man is an employee of KFC, and was representing the KFC brand when he decided to pistol whip someone. Also, if the young man is not violent, please ellaborate as to why he felt the need to have a gun on him while working behind the counter? As we say in the Accounting/Finance field "it appears" that this young man has ticked off alot of people. Thus, the need to carry a firearm to work, and work with a gun attached to your waist.— PSU_Chuck - I'm certainly not saying Henry isn't violent. He is violent. He's a convicted violent felon. If KFC hired him now, they'd bear liability for another such incident. But when Mr. Harris walked in, Mr. Henry had no such record. He had a record, but of nonviolent crimes. So there was nothing for a criminal background check to discover.
As told here, it's an odd story. You won't last long at a fast-food place if you can't stand indecisive customers. It happens all the time. Here's a video that discusses a much earlier such occurrence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UbwlID1wRA - KFC has a high level of culpability here. Did the background check consist of a criminal background check? How about a reference check? Also, the judge is insane. While that young man was working behind the counter he is a paid agent of KFC...thus representing them. I would appeal the judge's decision to a higher court. — PSU_Chuck
- Comment removed.
- Kelprod3, dang that was funny. I am eating my side order of wedges right now. Hold the pistol whipping.
While I am usualy against patrons sueing the corperations over the actions of it's employees, I have to agree with him on this one. Background check would have found that he was a criminal. They may have thought twice before allowing a convicted burgler access to their store like that.
And why wasn't this savage behind bars instead of being allowed to commit armed robbery a few months later. Repeat offenders like this need to be kept locked away. Maybe then a guy can get his chicken without the beatdown.— kkehoe5
