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.
Comments (74)
Mashed with gravy (tasty) and green beans (healthy). What's so hard ?— phillyjazz- No guns at KFC? Aren't they led by a "colonel?"— Seth Itzkowitz
- Get this guy a job at Pat's or Genos.. He can be in charge of "Plain-Cheese-Wit-Witout" OR "Speak English." He's fit in either steak joint !
— phillyjazz - Exactly. However, that is why you have to sue KFC!! The young man is an agent of the KFC meaning he represents them! This was such an open an shut case. I would still sue the young man for damages. At worst, you could probably get a judgement filed against him. It may not do alot, but if you can make sure the judgement is enforced....his 'little' dollars will shrink into 'little' change.— PSU_Chuck
Judge Stengel should be removed from the bench. I hope Harris appeals.- As a moral and PR issue You think KFC would have settled.
— Liberty_1776 - And this was before the "block the box" movement to prevent employers from asking if applicants have ever been convicted of a crime.
An employee with an extensive criminal record brings a weapon to work and assaults a patron in direct defiance of direction by other employees. Where's the manager? All levels of the corporation (Corporate Mgmt, Franchise holder, mgr on duty, individual) are accountable at varying levels.
If Stella Liebeck got paid for a hot cup of coffee, this is worth something...Your honr, what happens if Harris was shot instead of lumped up? Is KFC liable then? You betcha.— Lancer248 - I didn't see anything about white men owning this guys ancestors in the article. Keep your racist thoughts to yourself. He's a criminal, not the authority on black consciousness.— merf
- next time, use the drive through, faster get away.— ships
- I usually think we over sue in this country, however this is insane. A working employee reaches under the counter, takes out a gun, pistol whips a customer as he leaves and they aren't responsible. If he had slipped on a rug they would be writing a check. WTH.— ships
- That employee shouldn't have had a pistol on his person in the first place. Doesn't KFC have a regulation about not carrying firearms at work? The employee should been fired the instant he pulled the gun from his waistband not to mention using profanity against a customer. I believe the plaintiff is entitled to some kind of compensation from KFC, even if it's something a ridiculous as free fried chicken for life. Forget sueing the employee. Impoverished thugs working in fast food have no assets.— Miss Bunny
- When it came to Mr. Harris the chicken man was CHEAP! CHEEP!, CHEEP!, CHEEP! Wonder how much was spent on legal expenses to defend the suit. The Colonel takes better care of lawyers than he does of customers.— jimlve
- Wow, this is just too weird. Some people are just walking arguments for birth control.— dan708
- Based on what information is in this article, how does this judge still have his job????— TCUTTER
- @zippy - you know how many billions of dollars have been paid to shareholders because the Company's Executives cooked the books or committed some other type of fraud? It happens every day in America - so why should it matter if its a low-level employee pistol whipping a customer or a CEO spending a million on a party for his wife?— dankil13
- Pistol whippin good— Bill E. Penn
- Not sure why a company should be responsible for a criminal act of an individual. The low life should be put away for ever.— zippy1346
- Next time go to Popey's!— shadowelkie
- Did Popey's ever settle their lawsuit with Popeye's? I heard they used the landmark MacDougals/ McDonalds case as their legal precedent.
— DixonBunz - KFC doesn't offer all that many side dishes. If the guy was taking too long to decide, he deserved to be pistol whipped in the face.
The guy who did it is a hero of politeness.— RandlBackScrambln - So, an employee, a representative of the company (which is what they tell them they are) is no longer representing the company when they assault a client, while on the company's property? I'm curious to read the actual legal decision on this one, because on the face of it there should be no doubt that KFC is responsible.— Yoda117
- Kelprod = nimrod— merchandiser
- the main lesson from all of this - use the drive thru— Zero
- Must have been the same judge who only gave the perp 2 years for the attack!— dankil13
- It's pistol whippin' good!— fbrookes
- Wait lemme see if I got this right. A KFC WORKER pulled out a PISTOL during his shift at KFC and PISTOL WHIPPED a CUSTOMER who took too long to decide what he wanted and the CUSTOMER wasn't even the CUSTOMER of the PISTOL welding KFC WORKER? There is more to this story and they need to print it because there is no way this guy would have lost the case if these are the facts. Something is fishy here.— robin4faith
- And meanwhile all over America ridiculous judgements are awarded to idiots.
— Flyerne3981 - Sides is serious.— gho_matt
Comment removed.- The story is a disgrace to humanity and this article is a disgrace to journalism.— Trident252
- I WILL NEVER ENTER A KFC AGAIN.— REVENGEISMINE
- People are so on edge in this day and time...i recently got yelled and beeped at because I didn't move fast enough after the light changed green....i mean it had just changed green and as i was putting my foot on the gas he went at me....GEEZ. Taking to long or a human error can cost you your life...SERIOUSLY.— chop1118
- Did the DN make this up? This case is an eyes closed, slam dunk, Philly special. This case is every lawyer's dream; and the Judge said what?— paulfromtheoblongtable
- It's not like he was buying a car or house, just pick two. Instead, Henry provided his own side, a pistol whippin upside his head. He is lucky he didn't get the full clip salad with fresh hot rounds. Next time, Mr Harris should just go with the Cole slaw & mashed potatoes.— NWBeachBum
- sue the perp for what? his welfare check? smart logic there.— sdffa13
- if this was a small chain or small business owner / self-proprietor, the judge would have thrown the book at him... The whole country is bought by big corporate interests.. time for americans to wake up.— USAFirst1
- wow , cant even get a wing , nowadays
— james bond - KCF had a valid defense. Right below their warning "Caution: Coffee is hot" is another one that reads "Warning: Not knowing what sides you want in advance will get you pistol whipped".— towman
- Comment removed.
- That pistol whipping save the man's life because it ment that he didn'd have to eat the kofc chicken which we know will kill you.— rduexpress
- http://youtu.be/33zPlnhymCU— Bick421
- Thanks that was great! — Worker1
- have you seen triumph the insult dog at The Weiner's Circle in chicago?— Bick421
- "When you find yourself in danger, when you're threatened by a stranger, when it looks like you will take a licken...buk buk buk buk.
There is someone you can turn to, who will hurry up and rescue you, just caaaall, for Super Chicken! bukeeeeck!"— AnukKrakatoa - 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
- I'm surprised KFC got off teh hook. You would thuink they would be more liable for the conduct of their employees.— bokelevich
- Popeyes is better anyway.— juicy@34
- 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
- Comment removed.
- Say What? How is KFC not liable for this? Who is his attorney?— jfogs1
- Try Chic-Filet, they kill you with kindness.— Thelonius Monk
- 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
- 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
- How in the world can KFC not be responsible in some sort of way, this is amazing ...— morallyflexible
- i think kfc should be held accountable. they put him behind the counter. and i too usually think lawsuits are FOS.— black dog
- ^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 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
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- Comment removed.
- Kelprod3, dang that was funny. I am eating my side order of wedges right now. Hold the pistol whipping.
- 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
- 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
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 - 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
- Sure, sue the company, not the perpetrator.
- He should've went to Church's Chicken.— Commentdant_Klink
- So much for providing employment to violent ex-cons.— DonQ
- Comment removed.
- 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?
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: