i pulled up to the window at the drive thru and the guy robbed me but they didnt have a camera on that part of the drive thru so im wondering are they responsible for me not being able to catch the guy
2007-06-19 10:45:42 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Your better cause of action is not that you can't catch the robber, but that they failed to provide for your safety. First, it is not your responsiblity to catch the guy. That belongs to the police and DA. In order to prove harm you must show that if you knew the idenity you could sucessfully sue the robber and collect. Which would mean proving that more likely than not a person who is a robber as an occupation has attachable assests. Being you don't know who the robber is you can not possibly prove he has assests.
On the other hand, there lack of security camera's may have been the reason you loss your personal property and your tramatic experience. If you are reasonable, you should be able to recover in an out of court settlement the value of the property you lost plus a modest amount.
Speak to a tort attorney.
2007-06-19 10:56:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
2
2016-08-27 08:53:34 · answer #2 · answered by Hector 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You only have the RIGHT to sue MacDonald's if you put a cup of their OBVIOUSLY HOT COFFEE between your bare legs......but you won't win the case.... OF COURSE you can't sue MacDonald's---they did NOT contract with YOU for security and are not responsible for YOUR security when you are in your own car.... there are measures YOU should have undertaken so there would have been NO reason to be robbed.... LOCK ALL DOORS, and close all windows... you only need a few INCHES of window open to place your order at the drive thru.... sorry no lawyer will take your case unless it's a SHYSTER lawyer looking for any kind of publicity --even BAD publicity!!!
2007-06-19 10:53:00 · answer #3 · answered by LittleBarb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have got to be kidding. to me it sounds like you are out to make a few quick bucks. Almost like the woman who sued McDonalds because they didn't have a warning on the coffee that it was hot, and she burned herself with it. No they are not responsible for you not being able to catch the guy. Sorry, maybe next time you pay more attention to what the guy looks like yourself, and not rely on other people.
2007-06-19 10:56:44 · answer #4 · answered by danielss429 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, if someone got robbed on your front porch, they couldn't sue you for not having a camera. Stop driving up the cost of living with your stupid lawsuits.
2007-06-19 10:50:10 · answer #5 · answered by only p 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
NO, I didn't know it was the law to have a camera at the drive thru. Why didn't you catch the guy???
2007-06-19 10:50:58 · answer #6 · answered by $1,539,684,631,121 Clinton Debt 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you can sue if you want to, but they are not responsible for your getting robbed, they assume no responsibility for you or acts against you, the cameras are for their protection. I carry a concealed licensed weapon, and I assume responsibility for me, no one else.
2007-06-19 10:51:38 · answer #7 · answered by 007 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
MARTINSBURG - Berkeley County Commissioners bill Stubblefield and Tony Petrucci joined forces Thursday to bypass a noise ordinance that is composed of decibel limits for specific hours and fines for violations, yet they chosen to do away with an exemption for present day motocross tracks. That replaced into in direct opposition to cost President Ron Collins, who voted against the proposed action, asserting, "permit the checklist instruct I adversarial that." that may not the 1st time commissioners reported a thank you to attend to motocross centers, with Collins in the previous asserting that he did not have faith it replaced into criminal to "legislate" them out of employer. Commissioners had reported the way forward for Tomahawk MX Park, a motocross facility close to Hedgesville, which has been criticized via some buddies for allegedly turning out to be noise and dirt problems. Tomahawk proprietor Chad Gochenour, who attended the ordinance communicate and debate, declined to remark after the commissioners' vote Thursday. there replaced into no danger for citizen enter during the ordinance debate Thursday, even with the undeniable fact that public remark cases have been available interior the previous. Thursday, Petrucci reported he had all of his questions concerning to the ordinance replied and replaced into happy with all of them different than one - the section coping with motocross, "bike and/or different such prepared racing events." "i'm good to bypass aside from the exception under that section," Petrucci reported. "i think of all agencies might desire to be secure in this." Stubblefield, who additionally effectively sought to have the night decibel point decreased from fifty 5 to 50, agreed that the proposed motocross exemption replaced into complicated. "If we make one exception, the place can we draw the line? If we make an exception for the motocross, why not the interior of sight bar?" he reported. "i've got faith we'd desire to handle the agencies an identical." it is likewise significant to evaluate aspects vendors, Stubblefield sa
2016-12-08 13:49:12 · answer #8 · answered by vallee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
leagly or not i cant say, but how about you just put the blame on the crimina? i think this kind of attitude is hurting amarica
2007-06-19 10:50:31 · answer #9 · answered by Casey D 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think you can sue them. I am sorry that this happened to you.
2007-06-19 10:52:39 · answer #10 · answered by Pamela V 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋