At around 2:30 a.m. on March 18, 2013, plaintiff Kevin Bradford, 44, an African American, and his cousin were patrons at a Denny’s restaurant in Lancaster when Bradford got into a verbal dispute over his bill with the manager, Cathy Day. During the course of the dispute, Bradford left the restaurant and was stabbed in the parking lot by the manager’s boyfriend, Donald Thomas. Thomas was ultimately arrested and charged with attempted murder. However, after a year in police custody, he was released after pleading guilty to a felony charge of assault with a deadly weapon. Bradford sued the assailant, Thomas; the restaurant’s manager, Day; the owner of the Denny’s franchise, Dena Inc., doing business as Denny’s Restaurant (erroneously sued as “Denny’s Inc. (Lancaster)”); and the franchisor, DFO LLC (erroneously sued as “Denny’s Inc. (South Carolina)”). Bradford alleged that Thomas’ actions constituted assault and that Day’s actions constituted discrimination. He also alleged that Dena Inc. was negligent for failing to provide adequate security at the restaurant and that DFO LLC was vicariously liable for the actions of Day and Dena Inc. Prior to trial, Denny’s Inc. (Lancaster) and Denny’s Inc. (South Carolina) were dropped from the case as they were determined to be not a proper party, as Dena Inc. and DFO LLC were the appropriate parties, respectively. In addition, Thomas was dismissed from the case before the jury was sworn in, as it was determined that Thomas was not appropriately served. Thus, the matter proceeded against Day, Dena Inc., and DFO LLC. The parties stipulated that Bradford’s blood alcohol level at the time of incident was between 0.11 and 0.15. Bradford claimed that as he went to the restaurant his cousin, he saw a table of women with whom they were familiar and sat down with them for a period of time. He alleged that he eventually left the restaurant to retrieve money from an ATM and that the women walked out of the restaurant as he returned to eat separately with his cousin. However, Bradford claimed that after he and his cousin finished their meals, the waiter presented them with a check that included the cost for their food and the food of the women at the other table. Bradford claimed that he was not responsible for the women’s meals and that he never ate with the women at their table or promised to pay for their food. Bradford contended that he then spoke with a manager, Day, and the dispute over the bill continued, during which curse words were exchanged. Eventually, Day stated that she was going to call police. Bradford claimed that as a result, he and his cousin left the restaurant to wait for the police by his vehicle. However, he claimed that Day and her boyfriend followed them out of the restaurant and that a verbal altercation ensued between them in the parking lot. At some point, a physical altercation ensued, during which Day’s boyfriend, Thomas, stabbed Bradford multiple times. Bradford, an African American, asserted that he was discriminated against based on his ethnicity and that his treatment by Day, a Caucasian, was on account of his race. Specifically, he claimed that during the bill dispute, Day said, “You people always do this,” referring to his and his cousin’s ethnicity. Bradford also claimed that Day’s conduct in falsely attributing the bill of the women to him and in failing to defuse the argument between them concerning the bill was a breach of the duty owed to him, and ultimately led to the stabbing. In regard to the stabbing, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Dena Inc. was negligent for the restaurant’s inadequate security. Counsel contended that the franchise owed its customers a duty to protect them from violence on the restaurant’s property, but that Dena Inc. failed to hire security despite the restaurant being in a dangerous, high crime location. The plaintiff’s security expert opined that there should have been a security guard present, given that the restaurant was located in a very dangerous location and that there was a history of violence on the property. He also testified that although a security guard was provided during day hours for all of the business in the shopping plaza where the Denny’s restaurant is located, employees claimed that prior fights had occurred both inside and outside the restaurant and that given the persistence of incidents, the onus was on Dena Inc. to provided its own security for the evening/early-morning hours. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that both Day and Dena Inc. were agents of DFO LLC and that as such, DFO LLC was vicariously liable for Bradford’s stabbing. Counsel for Dena Inc. and Day argued that Day’s conduct did not cause Bradford’s stabbing. Counsel contended that the Day’s conduct was in response to Bradford cursing and yelling at her inside the restaurant and that Bradford had the last clear chance to avoid the incident. Counsel noted that the surveillance video outside of Denny’s showed Bradford walking to a “position of safety” near his vehicle, but then showed Bradford and his cousin choosing to confront Day and then her boyfriend, Thomas. Defense counsel contended that on the day of the incident, Thomas was a patron of the restaurant, eating a meal, as he planned to take Day home after her shift ended. Day testified that she left the restaurant to smoke a cigarette and to also write down Bradford’s license plate number, and that while she was smoking, her boyfriend joined her. She claimed that Bradford and his cousin then exited the restaurant and walked to Bradford’s vehicle. Counsel for Day and Dena Inc. noted that the video showed Bradford and his cousin walk toward Day, who remained at the front of the restaurant, apart from her boyfriend. Day testified that as Bradford and his cousin walked toward her, Thomas told them to leave and that Bradford and his cousin then focused their attention on Thomas and walked toward him. Day claimed that as a result, she walked over, stood in between Bradford and Thomas, and told Bradford to leave. However, she claimed that as she stood in between Bradford and her boyfriend, Bradford reached around and punched Thomas in the face. Day testified that she then moved out of the way and a brief tussle ensued, during which Bradford was stabbed. Day claimed that she never threatened Bradford before he and his cousin confronted her and Thomas. Defense counsel argued that Bradford further escalated the situation by refusing to leave when Thomas and Day told him to do so and by choosing to throw the first punch, which resulted in the stabbing. Counsel also disputed Bradford’s contention that he was not the aggressor on the day of the incident and presented evidence of an incident that occurred three years after the subject altercation, during which Bradford saw Day and Thomas at a restaurant and confronted them. Counsel contended that Bradford then told them that they should go outside so that “I can do to you now what I should have done to you then.” Defense counsel also presented an impeachment witness who testified that during the second confrontation, Bradford cursed at Day and threw her aside in an effort to get to Day and/or Thomas. On the issue of alleged discrimination, defense counsel argued that Day’s actions were not motivated by race, but rather by Bradford’s rude and aggressive behavior toward her. Day testified that she never said or made any derogatory suggestions regarding Bradford’s race. In the past, various Denny’s in the United States were sued for alleged discrimination against African American customers. However, defense counsel filed a motion in limine to exclude those prior discrimination claims because they were factually different from Bradford’s claim. Defense counsel argued that Bradford’s case was distinct as to where he sat, what he was served, and where he ate his meal prior to the dispute arising over the bill. Counsel noted that the prior cases and history asserted by Bradford’s counsel related to customers having to pay in advance for their meal. Judge Margaret Oldendorf agreed that the pre-payment cases were not relevant in the subject litigation and granted the defense’s motion. In the subject case, defense counsel argued that the subject Denny’s had a policy of “no split checks” after 10 p.m., which Bradford was subject to since he dined well after that time. Counsel suggested that the real reason Bradford left to get money from the ATM was to pay for the other women’s meal. Counsel also denied Bradford’s assertion that Denny’s policy of no split checks was discriminatory or that it was only applied to him in a discriminatory fashion. In addition, Day and the owner of the subject Denny’s testified that the policy was not applied to any patron on the basis of race., The trial was bifurcated. Damages were not before the court. Bradford sustained multiple stab wounds to his abdomen. After being stabbed, he walked to his vehicle, entered it, and attempted to drive to a hospital, but passed out on the way. As a result, his cousin steered the vehicle into a small tree to prevent them from entering traffic. Bradford was then taken to a local emergency room, where he underwent surgery. He later underwent 15 additional surgical procedures after his discharge from the hospital. Thus, Bradford sought recovery for his medical expenses and pain and suffering. His wife, plaintiff Nicole Bradford, presented a derivative claim, seeking recovery for her loss of consortium.