A man who was shot in a possibly targeted attack while waiting in a drive-through lane at a South Side Wendy's restaurant can't sue the restaurant's owners for allegedly failing to protect him, a federal appeals panel has ruled.
In the ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that, even though the Wendy's restaurant was in a high-crime area, no one at the restaurant could have foreseen that two men would walk up to the car driven by plaintiff Vonzell Scott and fire "multiple rounds into his vehicle from multiple angles" before fleeing "into the night," without any apparent intent other than to kill whoever they believed was in the vehicle.
The March 25 decision upheld an earlier ruling from U.S. District Judge Manish S. Shah, who had agreed to dismiss Scott's case against Wendy's Properties LLC.
The decision was authored by Seventh Circuit Judge Joshua P. Kolar. Judges Michael B. Brennan and Nancy L. Maldonado concurred.
"This was not a robbery or burglary gone bad, or an altercation that developed on the premises," Judge Kolar wrote. "None of the prior 911 calls at Wendy’s involved shootings of any kind.
"... Two men entering the Wendy’s parking lot, 'pulling out a gun and opening fire, is so extreme that it is difficult to conceive of how [Wendy’s] could have guarded against it.'”
Scott had filed suit against Wendy's in 2020, about two years after his vehicle was shot up while he waited in the drive-through of a Wendy's restaurant on West Garfield Boulevard, just north of Chicago's Englewood neighborhood, around 3 a.m. on Dec. 31, 2018.
According to court documents, an SUV stopped in an adjacent alley for about 30 seconds, then drove to the north side of the restaurant's parking lot, out of view of the restaurant's security cameras.
At 3:15 a.m., two men from that SUV approached Scott's car from behind and opened fire into the car's windows for five seconds, before fleeing on foot.
Scott suffered severe injuries from the shooting, but survived.
In his lawsuit, Scott claimed Wendy's should be held liable for his injuries because the restaurant didn't have armed security on site beyond the scheduled hours of 9 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.
The drive-through was scheduled to remain open until 4 a.m.
According to court documents, that particular Wendy's is one owned by the corporate parent company, and not by a franchisee. According to court documents, that restaurant is one of 2 percent of all Wendy's restaurants which employ armed security guards.
Scott asserted the high crime in the area surrounding the restaurant should have required Wendy's to do more to protect him and other customers from potential shootings.
Scott pointed to testimony from at least one employee at the restaurant, who said she had witnessed shootings and carjackings from the drive-through window while working overnight. However, those incidents reportedly took place at a gas station across the street from the restaurant, never on the restaurant property itself.
That employee also reportedly testified she wanted Wendy's to keep armed security guards on the premises overnight and had told managers the same.
Scott also noted Chicago's Office of Emergency Management recorded 29 calls for service at the restaurant from 2016-2018, "related to guns, disturbances, batteries and EMS requests."
None involved shootings, however.
Wendy's, however, sought to end the case quickly, arguing they couldn't be expected to foresee and prevent a rapid "military-style" hit, such as the one that apparently targeted Scott.
Judges agreed.
A federal district judge granted summary judgment to Wendy's in 2024, prompting Scott's appeal.
And the Seventh Circuit judges said the ruling was correct.
"Our sympathies lie with Mr. Scott, but because this extreme, isolated, and unprovoked display of violence was not reasonably foreseeable, we affirm," the judges wrote.
Scott was represented in the case by attorney John J. Muldoon, of the firm of Muldoon & Muldoon, of Chicago.