Strip search hoax costs McDonalds $6.1 Million dollars

No, it won't. This happend to that poor woman because of incompetence at that particular McDonald's, but I'm supposed to believe that incompetence will forever end throughout the whole corporation, or any other for that matter?

 

That's the legal consequence. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. The corporation is responsible for the actions of its employees. That's THE LAW. The corporation should either get more interested in what kind of employees it has, or else pay the penalties.

 

You would prefer an "awww, too bad" and a pat on the back for a sexual abuse victim?







Perhaps money to help her finish school (if indeed she does go to school, it doesn't say so in the article)/jumpstart whatever career she'd like to enter, but not in the amount ranging where, if spent/saved right, she wouldn't have to work another day in her life (as opposed to other victims of sexual abuse who do, and don't recieve millions because of it).

 

Still don't understand why the manager and the boyfriend didn't bear the brunt of the lawsuit. They're magnitudes more liable than McDonalds for what went on that day. Was the fiancee even an employee?

 

Since I've just now actually read the article, does "her former fiance" refer to manager who got charged with a misdemeanor, or the victim? Ambiguous use of 3rd person pronouns FTL.

 

Ba da dat da daaaah....



[image=http://www.department13designs.com/lovin_it.gif]








[image=http://wizbangblog.com/images/2005/11/ronald_mcdonald_arrested.jpg]







[image=http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/image_full/international/photosvideos/photos/ronald-mcdonald-is-arrested-in.jpg]

 

Because McDonald's has more money?

 

Again, it was horrible what happend to her, but I don't think she should just get millions out of it.

 

Out of principle, it still annoys me, although a bit less than something like the Tennie Pierce case.

 

And the bulk of the money is punitive damages, not technically compensation. It's to punish McD's, not as recognition that she actually suffered that harm. So no, her injuries probably weren't worth 6 million, but the court felt McDs deserved to be punished that much.

 

Punitive Damages = Emotional Compensation

1. And once again, why should McD's be held liable because a sick degenerate decided to use a practical joke to his advantage?

It's all because this is Kentucky, and said degenerate is not swimming in cash...which brings me to the next point.....

2. How is forcing a company that owns over a million properties worldwide to pay $6.1 mil qualified as "punishment"? Six dollars and ten cents from every location. Woo hoo.

If they wanted to truly punish somebody, they should have gone after the owner of that one particular franchise, as every McD's is generally locally owned and operated.
That would have at least made sense.

 

When a company is liable for the action s of its employees can get pretty complicated. Courts try to ask answer the question of whether the employee was acting in his role as an employee. If so, the employer is liable.

Obviously, McDonald's doesn't hire people to perform strip searches of other employees. But some "abuse" of an employees power is held by courts to be attributable to the employer.

In this case, the woman is definitely entitled to damages -- and here I believe they are "ordinary" damages, not punitive -- meant to repair the damage to the victim. $6 million for sexual abuse seems about right.

Whether you think McD's should be the one to pay is another question, though I think here I would say yes -- the abuse was done not just by an ordinary employee, but someone promoted to a position of power.

 

No, that would be damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering.

1. And once again, why should McD's be held liable because a sick degenerate decided to use a practical joke to his advantage?

It's all because this is Kentucky, and said degenerate is not swimming in cash...which brings me to the next point.....

2. How is forcing a company that owns over a million properties worldwide to pay $6.1 mil qualified as "punishment"? Six dollars and ten cents from every location. Woo hoo.

If they wanted to truly punish somebody, they should have gone after the owner of that one particular franchise, as every McD's is generally locally owned and operated.
That would have at least made sense.
[/quote]
They're limited by the USSC's ruling that excessive punitive damages are unconstitutional.

And yankee, most of the money is punitive: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-05-strip-search-hoax_N.htm?csp=34

 

Thanks for the link, Marcus.

Not sure I agree with the punitive amount -- to be honest, I'm not really a fan of them to begin with. Still, I think the victim deserves significant compensation from the company.

What boggles my mind, though, is that person who performed the search got 1.1 million. WTH? She's getting paid for being an idiot? To me, she deserves more of the blame than the caller, who was just puling a prank. She should be ppaying 1.1 million to tthe victim, not getting it herself from McDs.

 

Well, now that the manager has that settlement, perhaps she'll be getting a lawsuit against her by the victim.

 

Good point.

 

The sexual abuse was carried out by the fiancee, who was not (as I understand it) an employee of McDonalds.

 

The assistant manager knew the employee had been stripped naked left in only an apron then left her in a closed room with the fiancee for 2 hours.

Tell me jp-30 at what point is Mcdonalds no longer responsible for the egregious conduct of their management?

In any case in response to your question about the 1.1 million settlement with Ms. Summer. apparently it's 100,000 paying half of her compensatory damages to the girl, and 1 million for failing to tell the management about the hoaxing which had gone on for years which ended up with her getting a misdemenor for unlawful imprisonment.

I am not entirely convinced those damages are accurately given.

 

I think there's a good chance that she was actually the Assistant to the Manager and not the Assistant Manager.