Bid to Regain $2.9-Million Judgment in Shooting Fails

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid to gain reinstatement of a $2.9-million judgment against Jack-in-the-Box restaurants won by a customer who was seriously wounded trying to stop an armed robber fleeing a fast-food outlet in Newhall.

The case was believed to be the first of its kind in the state where a patron had successfully sued a business establishment for injuries suffered in attempting to apprehend a robbery suspect.

The justices, over two dissents, let stand a ruling issued June 10 by the state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles that overturned a jury award won by Keith Forrand of Saugus.

Forrand had entered the restaurant early one morning in 1977, moments after a teen-age bandit, brandishing a .22-caliber rifle, had approached a drive-in window and demanded cash.

According to testimony in the case, Forrand arrived just as a waitress shouted, “Stop him!” Forrand, a regular customer at the establishment, jumped in his car and gave chase. He spotted the bandit in a getaway car, blocked it with his own auto and confronted the culprit.

The robber later testified that he told Forrand to stay in his car but that Forrand got out of the vehicle and walked toward him, saying, “You’d better know how to use that thing.”

The bandit then fired, and Forrand was hit in the head, suffering permanent brain damage, partial loss of sight in one eye and deafness in one ear.

The youth, who had taken $81.39, was later arrested and served eight months in the California Youth Authority.

Forrand brought a negligence suit against Jack-in-the-Box, saying he had chased the robber under the impression that he had simply failed to pay his bill. The restaurant was at fault, he said, for recklessly enlisting his aid without any warning that the youth was armed.

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury agreed with Forrand, but the appellate court overturned the judgment, finding that the waitress should not be blamed for crying for help and that she had no way of knowing Forrand would actually pursue the suspect in his own car.

‘Of His Own Doing’

Forrand’s confrontation with an armed robber was “of his own doing” and the restaurant should not be held liable, the appeal court said.

Forrand’s lawyer took the case to the state Supreme Court, contending that the appellate decision would encourage business proprietors to negligently employ customers to chase thieves when they should instead rely on police.

The court, in a brief order, refused to consider the appeal, with only Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justice Stanley Mosk voting to hear the case. Votes from four of the seven justices are required for review.

Can’t Earn Living

The attorney for Forrand, F. Rowland Wrinkle of North Hollywood, expressed disappointment with the court’s action and said that because of the injuries he suffered, Forrand “essentially will not be able to earn a living for the rest of his life.”

“It’s a real shame,” Wrinkle said.

Alan G. Martin of Los Angeles, an attorney for the restaurants, said that had the jury award been upheld, it would have set a “horrendous precedent.”

“It would have meant that any person (like the waitress) who seeks help would have to face liability if anything happened,” Martin said. “Luckily, we in this country haven’t reached the stage where people have to be afraid to cry out for help.”