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.
I still haven't tried the KFC Double Down. Besides missing the chance of a good pistol whipping for ordering it with a sides, am I missing much else?— Lunchboy- ^Sue the perp? For what? He works at KFC, he's got nothing! Stinking animals high on something have zero respect for others or their property. Full of anger at the white man for owning their ancestors 200 years ago...Get Over It! Or continue getting stoned, perpetrating some heinous act, and ending up in a cage for the rest of your life.— AnukKrakatoa
- i think kfc should be held accountable. they put him behind the counter. and i too usually think lawsuits are FOS.— black dog
- How in the world can KFC not be responsible in some sort of way, this is amazing ...— morallyflexible
- b/c he didn't get time for illegally carrying a conceal weapon, he went on to commit arm robbery.— Nphilly
- b/c he didn't get time for illegally carrying a conceal weapon, he went on to commit arm robbery.— Nphilly
- b/c he didn't get time for illegally carrying a conceal weapon, he went on to commit arm robbery.— Nphilly
- I was an arm robbery victim once. The guy used an illegal conceal weapon on himself, so I never saw him coming. However, UPenn set me up with an awesome prosthetic and now I'm better than brand-new.— le sigh
- Try Chic-Filet, they kill you with kindness.— Thelonius Monk
- Say What? How is KFC not liable for this? Who is his attorney?— jfogs1
Comment removed.- I'm no fan of frivilous law suits but I actually think this one is valid. Anything that happens in the KFC property & perpetrated by a KFC employee should be grounds for a legal suit. It's not like some random robber came in with a gun and pistol whipped the dude. Then you can't blame KFC since they have no control over that.— Niko
- Popeyes is better anyway.— juicy@34
- I'm surprised KFC got off teh hook. You would thuink they would be more liable for the conduct of their employees.— bokelevich
- After reading this BS I got to think the Judge in this case must have gotten his hands greased with some chicken money. Talk about the need to appeal this idiots rulling. Again the states Judicial system at it finest— ONLYinPhilly
