Justice and Lawful Coexistence Is Not Always

¶ … Justice and lawful coexistence is not always easy to understand or comprehend. Abstract laws only gain meaning when applied through real life experience. The purpose of this paper is to examine a specific incident in which a large business is being sued for negligence towards one of its customers. This essay will help add context to bring about a more useful and practical understanding of this aspect of business law.

McDonalds is a very popular restaurant and claims to have served billions upon billions of people. The nature of this business provides cheap and relatively unhealthy foods to customers looking for a quick and easy dining experience. Drive thru windows which allow customers to an even more convenient way of dining are a staple of Mc Donalds and other fast food restaurants. In December of 2010, an incident occurred in Orlando, FL which brought about an interesting law suit examining the finer points of negligence and liability.

Fastenberg (2012) documented a story about McDonalds and a current law suit citing negligence in its operations. He reported that a drive thru worker, Kristy Perez, issued a verbal insult to one of her coworkers while a customer awaited his food order. The word "faggot" was issued by the attendant as the customer, Ryan Snyder, took offense to this exchange even though it was not directed at him. A confrontation ensued where Snyder alleges that Perez became angry when he confronted her about her usage of the word "faggot" and Perez attacked Snyder and his carful of friends.

Snyder called 911 while the McDonalds manager told Perez to go home and she never came back to work. She was later arrested on a traffic charge and charged in the Snyder case. Snyder decided to bring about a civil suit. Fastenberg wrote " His lawsuit against McDonald's alleges that the chain and the individual franchise is guilty of 'negligent hiring' for bringing on employees who "were, and are, incompetent, unfit for employment in the food service or any industry, and dangerous." The suit also accuses McDonald's of negligent supervision as well as the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Snyder is seeking at least $15,000 in damages."

Negligence is the failure to use reasonable and prudent care in doing the act of something routine where, under normal circumstances, the incident would not happen. A proximate cause of injuries sustained is necessary to prove negligence. Strict liability is another facet of this case that differs from negligence. Strict liability is a standard that tests whether or not a person or organization is liable in a particular civil case. Strictness is determined more or less by inherent risks in the overall situation. Strict liability lessens the amount of intent needed to be proven in the case due to the obviousness of the circumstances.

In the case of Snyder suing McDonalds it is safe to eliminate strict liability as a fault of McDonalds. Reasonably, it does not seem inherently dangerous to order food from McDonalds and employee attacks on customers are rare and not widespread. A question of negligence however is noteworthy and requires thought and examination.

Certain questions need to be asked to determine if Mc Donald's is liable for the damage done upon Snyder. Certain parameters need to be met in order to hold McDonalds liable. Did McDonalds owe Snyder a specific duty? Yes. Did McDonalds violate this agreement? Yes. As a result did Snyder suffer injury? Yes. Was the injury a reasonable consequence of McDonalds actions? The answer to the last question is debatable.

The crux of the matter is determining how much personable responsibility McDonalds has over the conduct of its employees. Reasonability is a relative term and different environments will certainly hold different opinions about what is reasonable or not. The legal system being divided into local segments attempts to safeguard against this relativeness offering fairness according to physical and geographic location.