this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
210 points (97.7% liked)

Not The Onion

16263 readers
916 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:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...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
 

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
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 11 hours ago

Yeah but isn't it a criminal act to poison

"Poison" implies someone deliberately intended to cause harm. Nothing has been presented to argue that someone deliberately intended harm.

I mean, if I was allergic, I wouldn't trust the restaurant either,

Exactly. This is what a reasonable, prudent person would do. If the customer had checked their order, they would have discovered the problem before any harm arose.

Which is why this guy's health insurance should simply cover this: simple negligence by the insured is not a valid justification for denying coverage.

It would be different if we were talking about something that the customer couldn't have verified. But the presence or absence of onions topping a burger is easily verified before consumption; the customer was not reliant on the restaurant to ensure their own safety. They had the ability to prevent this particular harm through a simple, reasonable action that they failed to perform.

IMO, that means their liability here is the cost of the burger. They would have been expected to replace the burger if the customer had checked.

But the real takeaway here is Fuck Health Insurance. If this is, indeed, subrogation as I suspect, we should be picketing an insurance executive.