“Jack in the Box ordered to pay St. Louis beating victim $20 M”

At 5 a.m., although the seating area of the fast-food restaurant was closed, the drive-through window was still filling orders. Some people were partying in the parking lot when Ali Aziz and a friend arrived. The friend got into an altercation with the partiers, Aziz stepped in and was beaten and nearly killed, suffering brain damage. Lawyers proceeded to argue that the fast-food chain should have trained its employees better and failed to follow its own procedures for handling disruptive customers. “The jury award was actually for $25 million but was reduced to $20.5 million because jurors found Aziz was partially to blame for his involvement in the fight.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]


  • http://www.bettercallsaul.com

    (and you thought it was parody)

  • Yep… if you’re a fast-food outlet serving late-night customers, you’ve got to have your own privatized SWAT team on contract to keep the parking lot in order. If not, you face legal consequences.

  • Let me see if I got this right. Jack in the Box is 82% responsible, the victim is 18% responsible, and the partiers that administered the beating were 0% responsible for their own actions. What’s wrong with this picture?

  • I am clearly doing something wrong in my practice.

  • the partiers that administered the beating were 0% responsible for their own actions

    They have the sovereign immunity from liability – no assets.

  • Jack in the Box was screwed from the start. The perpetrators were all black, so what do you think would have happened if J-Box had done anything in advance to break up the street party; they would have been bitch slapped with a racial discrimination suit instead.