Legal Nightmare: The St. Louis County KFC Mob

How do you get justice when the other side hides evidence?

Apr 12, 2025

I did not go looking for a nightmare, and yet I find myself lying awake in bed at 2AM, unable to sleep for thinking about this case.

In essence, a father and his daughter went to a restaurant, where the employees (allegedly) didn’t want to serve them. After the father and daughter left the restaurant, several of the employees followed the pair to the parking lot and threatened them, even writing down the license plate number so they could “do a drive by.”1

Those facts are bad enough. But what is really keeping me awake is the fact that there are no consequences—no prosecutions (that we know of) for the behavior or for destroying evidence; no way to get the employee’s names to sue them individually, and the restaurant, through its litigation strategy, appears to be defending its employees.

woman covering her face with blanket — Photo by Alexandra Gorn on Unsplash

In reviewing recent case law, there’s a recent case in the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District where the case summary states that “Missouri does not recognize an independent tort of spoliation. Even if Missouri did recognize a tort of spoliation, Appellants could not state a claim because the trial court’s summary judgment in the underlying case was not based on the spoliation of evidence.”

In simple terms, Jack sued Jill because Jill tripped him with a stick. After Jack fell down, broke his crown, and sued Jill to recover the hospital bill, Jill burned the stick and destroyed the video that showed her tripping him and very carefully tumbling after.

Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water

In a decision filed on April 1 of this year, William Sandbach and his family sued2 KFC over a traumatizing incident at a KFC restaurant. Before discovery could happen, the security video was destroyed, and Sandbach tried to bring a separate suit over the destruction (“spoliation”) of the video that would otherwise be used as evidence.

It is a federal and state crime to destroy evidence. But this is a civil proceeding and I can’t tell you what Wesley Bell’s or Bob McCullough’s prosecutorial office had to say about it.

Sandbach sued KFC and KMS-KFC, alleging Defendants are responsible for their employees, therefore should be responsible for the harms (torts) of negligent hiring, assault, negligent training, supervision, and retention; and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Without hearing any evidence, the trial court dismissed all charges except for negligent hiring, “based on the “unexpected and outrageous,” and therefore unforeseeable, nature of the employees’ conduct.”3

Appellants William and Jennifer Sandbach and their daughter sued Respondents KMS- KFC, LLC and KFC Corporation, Inc. The lawsuit arose from a confrontation between Appellants and employees working at a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, of which KMS-KFC is the franchisee and KFC Corporation is the franchisor. Appellants alleged they entered Respondents’ restaurant shortly before it closed. The employees wanted Appellants to take their food to go, while Appellants insisted on eating in the restaurant. Appellants, who are white, claimed that the employees, who are black, responded by calling them “white trash.” Other sharp words were exchanged between Mrs. Sandbach and an employee before Appellants left the restaurant. Appellants alleged that, as they were leaving, things took a turn for the worse. Several employees, including the manager, swarmed Appellants on the parking lot, insulting them, calling them racial slurs, and threatening to kill them. An employee threatened to have “her people” find where Appellants lived and “do a drive by” since she had their license plate number. Central to the current litigation, the events of that night were captured on security video, which subsequently was destroyed by Respondents — Statement of Facts as described by the Appellate Court

Again, I don’t know where the prosecutor was in all of this. According to Defendants, more than 5 years after the incident (and nearly 4 years after the case was filed), Sandbach did not have the names of employees because “Defendants are actively working to identify the other employees present at the restaurant on the day of the incident.”4

In a handwritten order dated January 8, 2024 (but file stamped January 8, 2012), the Court gave them a pass on the employee records. (Please note there is a 2 year statute of limitations on suing for assault, and at most, a 10 year statute of limitations for criminal or civil liability for any of this.)

This whole thing makes me question why any law-abiding citizen would live in St. Louis County, Missouri.

I say “allegedly” because these facts are assumed to be true for the procedural matters discussed. The facts are pretty shocking, but the dispute isn’t whether they are correct.

If you want to look at the cases yourself, this is how:

Go to courts.mo.gov. (Clicking the link should skip steps 2 & 3)
Click on “Find a Case”
Click on “Case Number Search”
Underlying case # is 19SL-CC01102
Appellate case # is ED112808
The public case file is under the “Docket Entries” tab at the top.
You may have to click on the ➕ next to a docket entry to see a link to the document.

Appellate Court Order dated April 1, 2025, in ED112808, page 2.

Sandbach v. KMS-KFC, DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF DUE TO PERSISTENT AND INTENTIONAL SPOLIATION AND DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE, case no. 19SL-CC01102, filed on January 5, 2024.

Sarah Unsicker's newsletter

Discussion about this post