Not The Onion

16263 readers

1018 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

232

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

submitted 18 hours ago by Chozo@fedia.io to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

80 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

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Patent vs latent defect. Any issue with the product that the customer could reasonably identify before suffering harm is the customer's responsibility to avoid. The vendor's liability here is the cost of the burger. The vendor is not liable for the harm arising from the customer's failure to look at the food they are about to eat.

The vendor is responsible only for harm caused by defects the customer could not reasonably avoid. Hiddent, latent defects.

If this is a case of subrogation, as I suspect, the customer acquired insurance coverage for the purpose (in part) of mitigating harm due to their own negligence. If this is the case, it is that insurance policy that is liable for the harm caused by the customer's failure to verify the burger met their requirements.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

That doesn't really sound like an argument that it's frivolous, it sounds like an argument about why the company shouldn't need to pay much. What if the onions weren't obvious? I don't know if they put their onions in a sauce, in the bun or something else.

It's entirely plausible that lifting the bun would have revealed the onions, even most likely. I wouldn't, however, say that the concept of difficult to spot onions is so unreasonable as to say the case is frivolous.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 54 minutes ago* (last edited 52 minutes ago)

I would call it "frivolous" when the primary purpose of a case seems to be for two teams of lawyers to generate billable hours for eachother.