Denny's Lawsuit Award - $46.4M

[Sebastian the Ibis]

They indicated in one of the above articles that if Denny's had hired security or even had a "strong, well-trained manager/authority figure manager was on duty" that this incident wouldn't have happened.

It's always a what-if. Even if they had hired an armed former Navy Seal drill instructor type, who shot the SOB with a double tap between the eyes, as soon as he saw him return with a gun, the same Plaintiff's attorney would sue Denny's for killing his poor innocent client who was returning apologize and pay for his dinner, but didn't feel safe returning without a gun. If the Navy Seal drill instructor waited until the guy started shooting, they would be in the same pickle.

In short there is really nothing you can do as a business owner in most cases. However, in Florida, the property owner may be able to turn around and sue the attorneys in these situations. For the attorneys out there, see Abu-Ghazaleh v. Chaul, (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) available here: http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/opinions/3D07-3130.pdf. Also the Tobacco Companies are serving offers of judgment on all Plaintiffs in the Engle cases and pounding the bejesus out of unsuccessful ones for atttorneys fees - This is not a cost effective strategy for most small business owners who get sued once in a while, but it works well for large cases like this since the Plaintiff knows their options are: 1. drop the lawsuit, 2. win or 3. lose the case, your bank accounts, non-homesteaded property, and everything in your house that is not nailed down.

 

[Cosmoline]

In Alaska we have a loser-pays system that penalizes dice-rollers. Even in a routine MVA the Rule 68 fees can mount upwards of $50,000. So if you gamble wrong you pay big. That, along with various 1997 tort reform measures, has scared off most of the big sharks. Other states have fooled around with similar loser-pays systems, but the concept is so alien to most court systems that they try to limit application as much as possible. There is a deeply ingrained belief that justice requires big awards for plaintiffs. Indeed, that the entire civil justice system should be geared towards payments of money to the complainers. Sorry, "plaintiffs".

 

[Frank Ettin]

In Alaska we have a loser-pays system that penalizes dice-rollers...

A loser-pays system is, IMO, one of the best ways to promote some rationality in our tort litigation system. It can help to cut down on frivolous lawsuits and to encourage prompt and reasonable settlement of meritorious claims.

I think it makes a lot of sense. I'd like to see it implemented in every State.

...the concept is so alien to most court systems...

But it's pretty much always been that way in Great Britain.

 

[TexasBill]

Denny's big problem was documentation of prior incidents combined with corporate reticence to place an armed person in their restaurants. Whether it's an off-duty cop or a security guard, Denny's would be responsible for their actions because Denny's hired them for the express purpose of having an armed presence on the premises. If the officer returned fire and accidentally hit another patron, Denny's would be sued and would most likely lose.

Plus, having an armed officer on hand would likely drive off those patrons who weren't coming out of the bars but just wanted to have a meal. This results in lost revenue.

Basically, the only option Denny's has is to close during post-bar hours. That would mean a loss of millions in revenue.

So Denny's choices are: Do nothing and be liable for doing nothing; do something and be liable if that something doesn't work out perfectly; scare family business away or close.

This is really a case of "heads, they win; tails, we lose."

And anyone who thinks this is purely a modern phenomenon is dead wrong: Business owners have always been responsible in one way or another for what takes place on their premises. The history of business liability insurance goes back centuries. I will agree that the extent of liability has exploded over the last half-century and has reached some rather ridiculous extremes but it's worth noting that neither party, Republican or Democratic, has done much to curb such lawsuits. Then again, neither have a number of large companies, who have opted to settle because it was cheaper to settle than to fight, even though they likely would have prevailed. You show somebody a fertile field, you're guaranteed they're going to plow it.