Woman offers homeless man cheeseburger, gets beat up, sues Mcdonalds and liquor store

[TransformX]

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090421/NEWS03/904210340&s=d&page=2#pluckcomments

Fran MacLaren and her husband, Thomas, filed suit in Davidson County Circuit Court on Monday. They are asking for $2 million in damages.

In the criminal assault case against David Craig last April, MacLaren testified that she went to a Nolensville Road McDonald's for lunch on April 21, 2008. The homeless man, Craig, was outside of the fast-food chain after being told to leave a nearby liquor store, named in the suit as Uncle Koto Liquor Store.

MacLaren gave Craig the cheeseburger as he was lying down in a parking spot outside the restaurant. Craig shouted he didn't want the burger, just money and threw the burger at MacLaren, she testified.

"I told him he was an ungrateful bastard,'' she testified.

Craig went after her, she said. He struck her repeatedly, broke her nose, fractured her wrist, cheekbone and cracked a rib, she said. She also injured her knee.

MacLaren limped into the McDonald's but was later locked out of the restaurant.

According to the suit, both husband and wife allege that the McDonald's and the nearby liquor stores, "knew, or should have known, that their mode of operating their particular stores attracted persons prone to criminal acts and provided an environment to crime."

The suit states that both stores failed to provide a reasonably safe place for their customers.

Attempts to contact the owners of the Nolensville Road McDonald's and Uncle Koto Liquor store were unsuccessful.

[Dr Mordrid]

And what of her responsibility for cursing someone who is at high risk of being mentally ill?

(~22.5% of the homeless are classified as mentally ill with ~16% being severely and permanently mentally ill, but in most locales the law since the 70's 'mental health reforms' says they can't be forcibly medicated or interred unless a judge rules them dangerous and then it's often just for 3-10 days when they get out ad it starts all over again)

We seriously need tort reform along the lines of a 'loser pays' system. What people like her are depending on is an out of court settlement, which also should be severely restricted as shold be contingency/conditional fees. That should make some of the lawyers think thrice before filing.

[Brian Ellis]

Sure, a homeless man is bound to have a couple of million in loose change in his pocket. The stupid woman should have put it down to experience, especially as the guy was probably drunk or stoned.

[Gurm]

Am I reading this wrong? Are you seriously saying that the woman is at fault here?

Let's see:

- She offers the homeless guy a hamburger.
- He throws it at her.
- She cusses at him.

Now so far, nobody has broken the law. You can't make the "don't cuss at homeless people" argument. You just can't. I'm sorry.

Then AFTER brutalizing her, breaking several bones and probably causing her months of physical rehab... she gets LOCKED OUT OF THE RESTAURANT. Did they call 9-1-1? Why on EARTH would they LOCK HER OUT?

And somehow it's HER FAULT?

Wow. You guys are awesome.

[Brian Ellis]

Her fault is filing a suit.

The door was possibly locked
a) because she was screaming blue murder in a rage, disturbing other clients
b) because she was bleeding profusely, upsetting other clients/making a mess
c) because they didn't want the drunk/stoned guy in, and who could blame them?

Take your pick.

Is there a Tennessee law that states that stores must provide a reasonably safe place or asylum?

The suit is trivial. The only person she could reasonably sue would be her assailant and, even then, if he had the means, he could plead diminished responsibility (drunk/stoned, bonkers, she attacked him verbally).

Sorry, but she has only one person to blame, herself.

[The PIT]

Sorry Mr Ellis you're being the normal dipstick here as only you can.


The question is who is responsible for this person not getting help when she needed it.

[Dr Mordrid]

You're assuming there is a civil law or criminal statute duty to come to someone's aid. In all but a very few jurisdictions there isn't.

Yes - it's the right thing to do, but you cannot be compelled to do so especially if it puts you at risk.

[SpiralDragon]

Sorry Mr Ellis you're being the normal dipstick here as only you can.


The question is who is responsible for this person not getting help when she needed it.

the homless man is a victim of cuircumctances... if he was aforded a btere life and better care he would not have been in that situation. but as a result of his condition he is.. bitter... frustrated... lost... unable to handle a diffrent kind of reality (the woman being kind to him is that reality... hid mind cann not comprehend that.... its not food that he wanted...

the woman is a victime of the effect of the man being a victim of circumstances... she should not have thought that being kind to such a man who is a victim of curicumstances to react in the maner which she excpects him too... with gratfulness... she should have anticipated that this man requier far far far more than the kind jesture of bing given a burger

the woman is also a victim of apathy... the store owners or managment and their costomors should have come out to help her.. oppened the door for her... called the police.. etc... instead they did nothing... sure they are not obliged to do anything... but that just down right sais that they acted un-humanly...

so... who is to blame here..

the old man?
he has no control of his life... otherwise he would not be homless..

the woman?
she thought she was doing good by ofering the man food... but she was just rubing it in, so to speak.. and when her act of half harted benevolance, but more benevolance than most show, backfiered on her she became angry and deameaned the man even further...

The old man again?
he atacked her.. he was brutal... he was waked... but he was not incntrol of anything.. violance just made him feel good becuse it gave him the illusion of being in control when he realy had absolutly non... he is beyond the point of right and wrong

the store owners?
they are not obliged to care at all.. but as human beings we are suposed to help one another... if they cared about their costomers so much then they should have helped the woman... however the law does not protect them if the interfeered and things got even more out of hand... their are advantages for justice being blind.. and there are alot of disadvantages too... the disadvantage is that the law makes us more apathetic and unwilling to help eachother out..

the government?
alot of blame should go there... the governments role is to take care of its people.. be it the homless.. the woman.. the stor owners... whomever.. if the government was doing its job this man would atleats have a home.. food.. and helathcare... maybe even help him get an education or learn a vocation.. maybe even see a therapist.. all these things are costly and can not be aforded by the homless man on his own.

i can keep on going... this argument has no end...
i think the man should be helped by people who know what they are doing... to say the leaset .. he should not be homless..

the woman obvioulsy gave the man the burger and was very deamning to the man...
still the man had no right to beet her like he did and the store owners should have been far less apathetic..

however.. the woman is obviously over reacting.... sure she has the right to sue and file a complaint.. that is her right as a human being.. however she is being an oprtunist... becuse a true humanist.. and the fact that she gave the man a burger shows that that was the original intention of all this even if it was missinterpreted.... she is an opertunist becuse instead of asking that the man be given help in order for him not to repeat his error again.. she is asking for loads of money for her self.. she should ask for money to cover her expenses medical and leagal.. but millions?.... she is an opertunist... but she has the right to be like that... and she has the right to be very angry....

i just disagree with the disproportion of retaliation on both sides.. the man's and the woman's.. and i am apaled by the apathy of the stors..

[Belwarrior]

somehow... reading this article makes me very sad...(SD has said what i was thinking)
times have really changed

[SpiralDragon]

somehow... reading this article makes me very sad...(SD has said what i was thinking)
times have really changed

sadly times have changed.... we can not go backwards... but we can go forward and try to make the best of things.. maybe even salvage what we have damaged... who knows.. we may one day get it right

[Brian Ellis]

Sorry Mr Ellis you're being the normal dipstick here as only you can.


The question is who is responsible for this person not getting help when she needed it.

Only a person of sub-normal IQ can see she created the situation herself. The fact that it turned out badly for her is her own stupidity, exacerbated by the law suits that haven't got a snowball in hell's chance of succeeding.

Put it this way, as you live in a country with a certain violence record: imagine a couple of drunken teenager CHAVs fighting outside your front door and one of them screams for you to open the front door. Would you do so? Of course not! If you did, the chances are that both would force their way in and wreck your place and probably yourself. You probably wouldn't even call the cops because you know they would take a couple of hours to turn up, if they did at all! They don't want to get involved, either.

In the case in question, I can fully understand the owner of the liquor store and the manager of the MickeyDs not wanting their boutiques trashed.

I wonder how Jesus would have ended his parable if the Good Samaritan had received a fistful of fingers in the face in return for helping the traveller who had fallen foul of thieves?

[TransformX]

Only a person of sub-normal IQ can see she created the situation herself. The fact that it turned out badly for her is her own stupidity, exacerbated by the law suits that haven't got a snowball in hell's chance of succeeding.

Put it this way, as you live in a country with a certain violence record: imagine a couple of drunken teenager CHAVs fighting outside your front door and one of them screams for you to open the front door. Would you do so? Of course not! If you did, the chances are that both would force their way in and wreck your place and probably yourself. You probably wouldn't even call the cops because you know they would take a couple of hours to turn up, if they did at all! They don't want to get involved, either.

In the case in question, I can fully understand the owner of the liquor store and the manager of the MickeyDs not wanting their boutiques trashed.

Speak for yourself. While not admitting a stranger in, having children now at home, I'd certainly call the police and more than probably step outside, especially if another neighbor is there to assist.
As for the homeless guy, no sympathies here. I don't know if it's his fault or not and frankly, I don't care. If that's how he treated her, screw him and screw the business owners nearby.
Too many times in history silence has been a crime.

I wonder how Jesus would have ended his parable if the Good Samaritan had received a fistful of fingers in the face in return for helping the traveller who had fallen foul of thieves?

He'd turn the other cheek.