democracy tolerates no institutionsnwith a clear profile — as guides or indeednas barriers to leap over. Universitiesnthemselves fiise with politics, business,nand government. As far as thenhuman relations are concerned, theynare ruled if not by the cash nexus,ncertainly by the business character ofnour entire public life. And of course bynpervasive puritanism, which means livingnby formulas. In 37 years of teachingnin America I have known enoughnstudents to conclude that what theynlack is not the 100 volumes of thenLAWnTort Law ThreatensnUrbannDevelopmentnby Elliot C. RothenbergnA recent action by a Minneapolis judgenhas such a potential for inhibiting economicndevelopment of our central citiesnthat, if a decision by a putatively lessnhigh-minded apostle of judicial restraintnhad anywhere near a similar impact, thenmiscreant would be pilloried fromnCambridge to Berkeley for condemningnthe nation’s ghettos to further impoverishment.nThe Minnesota case concerned anMcDonald’s franchise opened in 1971nby a local resident on a high-crime blocknwhose other inhabitants were the FantasynHouse adult novelty store, a couplenof porno theaters, a dive, and a fleabagnhotel. The owner had invested generouslynin remodeling and upkeep on thenassumption that, as he put it, “you havena nice place, you get nice customers.”nUnfortunately, not all his patrons reciprocatednhis goodwill. In one incident inn1983, employees ejected two youthsnwho began fighting on the premises.nThe two continued their quarrel acrossnthe street and down the block, wherenone stabbed the other, causing permanentnparalysis. The Minneapolis police,nconsidered by the area’s political andnmedia elites as a model of enlightenednliberal administration under Chief AnthonynBouza, investigated the affair andndid not arrest the assailant, having concludednthat he committed no crime.nThe story does not end there, however.n”great books” (itself a publicity slogan)nor a choice between constructive Aristotlenand nihilist Nietzsche. What theynlack is a warm and gently culturednfamily life, friends to talk with arid tontrust, teachers who probe soul, taste,nand knowledge in an inseparable fu­nsion.nIn sum, I may be more pessimisticnthan Bloom, who, following ournsociety’s fashion, offers “remedies,”nwhich usually turn out to be parts ofnthe problem. Like his peers over thenpast decades (Rudolf Flesch, ArthurnAlmost two years later, on behalf ofnthe victim’s mother, a leader of thenstate’s plaintiff trial lawyers associationnfiled a multimillion dollar civil damagesnsuit against McDonald’s, claiming thatnits employees had been derelict in theirnduties. A nonlawyer might think thatnthe responsibilities of the restaurant’snworkers were limited to the preparationnand serving of hamburgers and similarnfare. Not so, said plaintiffs attorneynFred Pritzker; the employees shouldnhave protected the victim by separatingnthe combatants, ascertaining who wasnmost likely to get injured and providingnsanctuary for him while throwing outnthe other. The complaint did not specifynhow the waitresses and chefs were tonaccomplish this against armed adversariesnwithout endangering themselves andnother customers (and, incidentally, providingnammunition for more lawsuits).nA few months after the suit wasnlaunched, the McDonald’s franchiseninvolved abruptly shut down. The managementntold the press its reasons weren”economics” and “bad memories” ofnviolent “skirmishes.”nThe case never was tried becausenMcDonald’s was persuaded to bringnabout an end to the litigation by forkingnover $500,000. State District JudgenCara Lee Neville approved the settlementndespite explicitly holding that anynliability on the part of McDonald’s wasn”dubious.” She admitted that the injurynwas inflicted at some distance from thenestablishment by “an individual whonwas not in the employ of defendant andnover whom it had no control.” Still, shenruled the settlement “fair” because theninjuries were “catastrophic.” In othernwords, in a pinch the nearest deepnpocket will do. If anything, the judgenimplied, McDonald’s should have beennnnBestor, Jacques Barzun, et al.) he hasnlaunched a best-seller. In our societynthis means money and fame, but alsonneutralization through membershipsnon presidential committees dealingnwith the state of education. In othernwords, the closing of the mind. Thenstudents whom Bloom alerted will notnbe the better for it.nThomas Molnar is on the faculty atnthe City University of New York andnauthor of The Pagan Temptationn(Eerdmans).nhit up for even more because the injuriesnwere “not fully compensated by thensettlement amount.”nJudge Neville’s decision no doubtnwill delight plaintiff trial lawyers and thencritical legal studies professiorate asnopening glorious new vistas of tort law.nEven the most expansive (a la formernCalifornia Chief Justice Rose Bird) previousntort decisions disregarding thenconcept of intentional or negligent faultnat least predicated the award of damagesnon the finding of some legal culpability,nhowever attenuated (like “strict liability”nfor products ruled defective, or activitiesndeemed hazardous). Under the Nevillenstandard, that elementary requirementnis a thing of the past.nOthers not sharing the particularninterests of trial lawyers and academiciansnhave much less reason to welcomenthe outcome of the McDonald’s case.nThe immediate business target of thensuit, a lone exception to its sleazynsurroundings, closed its doors, throwingnseveral people out of work. Moreover, itngoes without saying that the precedentnestablished will discourage others fromnlocating businesses in urban ghettos.nThose sufficiently foolhardy or civicallyninclined, if they could obtain any insurancenat all, would likely encounter insurancencosts even more astronomicalnthan already exist. All the enterprisenzone laws in the world would scarcelynlure businesses into the inner citiesnwhere their owners, simply by being innthe wrong place at the wrong time,nwould be in constant jeopardy of financialnruin by judicial ukase.nThe victim himself gained nothingnfrom the suit. The money he was tonreceive from McDonald’s was seizednimmediately by state welfare officials asnreimbursement for past medical ex-nAUGUST 1988 / S3n