“The trial court correctly determined that McDonald’s Corporation had a duty to protect plaintiffs Laura Martin, Maureen Kincaid, and Therese Dudek from harm.” —McNulty, Judge 

Facts: McDonald’s Corporation (McDonald’s) is a franchisor that licenses franchisees to operate fast-food restaurants and to use McDonald’s trademarks and service marks. One such franchise, which was located in Oak Forest, Illinois, was owned and operated by McDonald’s Restaurants of Illinois, the franchisee. Recognizing the threat of armed robbery at its franchises, especially in the time period immediately after closing, McDonald’s established a corporate division to deal with security problems at franchises. McDonald’s prepared a manual for restaurant security operations and required its franchisees to adhere to these procedures. A McDonald’s regional security manager visited the Oak Forest franchise to inform the manager of security procedures. He specifically mentioned these rules: (1) No one should throw garbage out the back door after dark, and (2) trash and grease were to be taken out the side glass door at least one hour prior to closing. During his inspection, the security manager noted that the locks had to be changed at the restaurant and an alarm system needed to be installed for the backdoor. McDonald’s security manager never followed up to determine whether these security measures had been taken. One month later, a six-woman crew, all teenagers, was working to clean up and close the Oak Forest restaurant. Laura Martin, Therese Dudek, and Maureen Kincaid were members of that crew. A person later identified as Peter Logan appeared at the back of the restaurant with a gun. He ordered the crew to open the safe and get him the money and then ordered them into the refrigerator. In the course of moving the crew into the refrigerator, Logan shot and killed Martin and assaulted Dudek and Kincaid. Dudek and Kincaid suffered severe emotional distress from the assault. Evidence showed that Logan had entered the restaurant through the back door. Trial testimony proved that the work crew used the back door exclusively, both before and after dark, and emptied garbage and grease through the back door all day and all night. In addition, there was evidence that the latch on the back door did not work properly. Evidence also showed that the crew had not been instructed about the use of the back door after dark, the crew had never received copies of the McDonald’s security manual, and the required warning about not using the back door after dark had not been posted at the restaurant. Martin’s parents and Dudek and Kincaid sued McDonald’s to recover damages for negligence. The trial court awarded damages of $1,003,445 to the Martins for the wrongful death of their daughter and awarded $125,000 each to Dudek and Kincaid. McDonald’s appealed. 

Issue: Is McDonald’s liable for negligence? 

Language of the Court: The trial court correctly determined that McDonald’s Corporation had a duty to protect plaintiffs Laura Martin, Maureen Kincaid, and Therese Dudek from harm. Although it did not specifically state that such duty was “assumed,” there is ample support in case law and the facts of this case to support a determination that McDonald’s Corporation voluntarily assumed a duty to provide security to plaintiffs and protect them from harm. Once McDonald’s Corporation assumed the duty to provide security and protection to plaintiffs, it had the obligation to perform this duty with due care and competence, and any failure to do so would lead to a finding of breach of duty. Accordingly, there was ample evidence for the jury to determine that McDonald’s had breached its assumed duty to plaintiffs. 

Decision: The appellate court held that McDonald’s was negligent for not following up and making sure that the security deficiencies it had found at the Oak Forest franchise had been corrected. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding McDonald’s liable. 

Ethics Questions: Should McDonald’s have denied liability in this case? If McDonald’s had not established security rules and instigated inspections, would it have been held liable in this case?