Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Casey v. McDonald's Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

January 26, 2018

Paul D. Casey, Individually and as administrator of the Estate of Patrick D. Casey, and Abigail O. Casey, Appellants
v.
McDonald's Corporation, et al., Appellees

          Argued October 3, 2017

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:13-cv-01452)

          Brendan J. Klaproth argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants.

          Joseph J. Bottiglieri argued the cause for appellees McDonald's Corporation, Inc., et al. D. Stephenson Schwinn argued the cause for appellee RAH of Washington, D.C., Inc. With them on the brief were Andrew Butz, Michael L. Pivor, and Dominic G. Vorv.

          Before: Rogers, Kavanaugh, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges.

          OPINION

          Kavanaugh, Circuit Judge

         This case arose out of a drunken brawl, a not-uncommon occurrence late at night outside of D.C. bars. But this fight had an uncommon and tragic ending: someone died.

         The parents of the victim sued under D.C. tort law and named a variety of defendants, including as relevant here: (i) two bars that served alcohol to the assailant even after he allegedly was already visibly intoxicated; and (ii) the fast-food restaurant (McDonald's) where the altercation began. The District Court dismissed the claims against the bars and granted summary judgment to McDonald's.

         Based on D.C. precedent, we conclude that the allegations, if true, state a claim against the bars under D.C. law. We therefore reverse the District Court's dismissal of the Caseys' claims against the two bars. We conclude that the claims against McDonald's are unavailing as a matter of law. We therefore affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment to McDonald's. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

         I

         The McDonald's fast-food restaurant at 19th and M Streets, N.W., in Washington, D.C., is open 24 hours a day. Like many fast-food restaurants and diners, that McDonald's serves an influx of sometimes drunk customers on Friday and Saturday nights.

          After a Friday night of bar hopping in September 2011, two groups of men began exchanging words with each other at the M Street McDonald's. Jason Ward was in one group, and Patrick Casey was in the other. The men eventually ended up just outside the restaurant, on the sidewalk. At that point, Jason Ward punched Patrick Casey. Casey fell to the ground and hit his head on the sidewalk. Casey was taken to a local hospital.

         Four days after the fight, while still in the hospital, Casey died.

         Patrick Casey's parents sued. They brought D.C. tort claims against Ward and two of his friends who were part of the fight at McDonald's; against several bars that served Ward and his friends on the night of the fight; and against Kyung Rhee (the owner of the M Street McDonald's) and the McDonald's Corporation.

         At this point, the only remaining defendants are: (i) two bars, Ozio and Camelot, and (ii) Kyung Rhee and the McDonald's Corporation, whom we will refer to collectively as McDonald's.

         As to the two bars, the Caseys argue that the bars violated D.C. Code § 25-781 and therefore were negligent per se. That provision of D.C. law prohibits serving alcohol to already intoxicated persons. The Caseys allege that the bars served Ward and his friends even though the men were already visibly intoxicated. The Caseys further allege that the bars' negligence caused Patrick Casey's death. The District Court dismissed the tort claims ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.