Not The Onion

16263 readers

943 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

226

Texas man sues Whataburger for nearly $1 million after burger had onions on it (www.kens5.com)

submitted 17 hours ago by Chozo@fedia.io to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

HOUSTON — A Houston man is suing Whataburger for nearly $1 million after he says his burger had onions on it.

Turns out he had asked for a no-onions order.

On July 24, 2024, Demery Ardell Wilson had an allergic reaction after eating a burger that had onions on it at Whataburger, court documents say. He alleges that he requested the fast-food chain to take them off before serving him the burger.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 19 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

And that's why it's fair to sue them. What you're describing is callous indifference to the well-being of others that has caused demonstrative harm.

I think everyone agrees on what the fast food place is thinking. The issue is that that line of reasoning is dangerous and has legal penalties.

Think of it with "hand washing" and "fecal coliform bacteria" instead. "It's too expensive to train our workers to wash their hands after pooping, and most wouldn't anyway because we don't pay them enough to care" just isn't a defense when someone gets sick as a result.

[–] madame_gaymes@programming.dev 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

What I'm saying is stop supporting companies that don't care; stop giving them money and don't eat there again if they can't follow your request. I'll say it a 3rd time, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

That's not callous indifference, that's 1) voting with your wallet and 2) trying to promote a little self-reliance.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Just for the record, other people haven't necessarily seen other comments you've made. Acting indignant about that is frustrating.

What's callous indifference is the company having an attitude that allergy safety is too much work, not thinking you should vote with you wallet.

A lawsuit is part of voting with your wallet. More specifically, giving them a financial incentive to take food safety more seriously.

I seriously doubt the guy is going to go back to either restaurant, so voting with his wallet and not giving them money for a burger is done, and likely doesn't cover the costs he incurred as a result of their error.

When is a lawsuit appropriate if not after a business decides to cut corners and hurts you?

[–] madame_gaymes@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

What's frustrating is people thinking they can fight a corrupt system from within the corrupt system, playing by their rules. The story of Winston Smith in 1984 is a lesson, not something to model your life after.

Suing someone, if you have the capitol to do so and actually win, doesn't do a whole lot in the long run and it isn't accessible to a lot of people because of the cost. It's part of the operating costs for large corporations these days.

Let's take Whataburger. Their best year they pulled in $6.7m profit. If you had 7 suits @ $1m payout all occur at the same time and win, then great, you might do something. However, neither of the two cases this guy is suing for have come to a conclusion yet, and it's just one person. They also still have an income source from patrons that are still buying their product, so they will make it back and they know that.

If you instead spread the word and cut off their income source by raising awareness of it, it becomes much more effective and there's no BS legal crap going on that can be twisted by lawyers. Just pure loss of profits.

ETA: I repeated my comment precisely because I expected you didn't dig through all the comments. For those that do read through them all, they know I understand that I'm repeating myself because of all the spawned threads in here.