this post was submitted on 20 May 2025

229 points (97.9% liked)

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

229

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.

(page 2) 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] mrfriki@lemmy.world 20 points 16 hours ago

Very fitting title for this sub indeed.

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 17 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

It was the onion though.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 7 points 16 hours ago

I think this is a rare instance where eating the onion actually fits the /c/ :)

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 13 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (3 children)

Back in June 2024, Wilson also sued Sonic for including onions on a burger. That fast food company has requested a jury trial for this week.

Dude is literally wasting his own time. They keep lawyers on retainer for these exact type of cases. He'd fail even with a small company once he hit their insurance lawyer.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 12 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

What argument do you think the lawyers would make? A food establishment is supposed to be able to safely handle food. He requested food without an ingredient for health reasons and they agreed. Then they failed at food handling and he got sick.

It's a civil case, so the result can be a divided share of the blame. Something also tells me that they won't want to make the argument "no reasonable person would have any expectations that we got their order right".

Having a lawyer on retainer doesn't mean you're going to win, it just means you expect enough lawsuits to justify it. Recall the "absurd" McDonald's hot coffee case that 1) they lost despite having a lot of lawyers, and 2) wasn't absurd except through the lens of our society tending to label anyone suing a company as some combination of foolish and greedy.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

I doubt that he's the one actually suing. I suspect that the actual plaintiff is his health insurer.

So many of these frivolous lawsuits ultimately originate from the insurance industry.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 15 hours ago

I'm betting that this is subrogation: His health insurer doesn't want to pay his medical bills, so they are filing suit in his name.

[–] Bgugi@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

Slipped on pee-pee at the megalomart.

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

This lawsuit will fail. They state they will make efforts to accommodate allergies but they cannot guarantee it. It's cut and dry, there just ain't no way

load more comments (1 replies)

[+] Scott_of_the_Arctic@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 8 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

People who specifically requested their food be made without the thing they are allergic to?

Food allergies are something supposed to be taken extremely seriously in public food service. Second to general sanitation, its the whole point of why we have strict regulations about making and serving food.

From the minute the guy ordered w no onions and told them it was an allergy, his entire order should have been made and handled with fresh equipment that had been nowhere near any onions. Its not something that is ever supposed to be easily missable. Otherwise someone could end up in the hospital, like this dude

[–] Scott_of_the_Arctic@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

In order to actually do this, most places I've worked would have to hire an extra person. Spoiler : they definitely won't do that.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Everywhere Ive worked allergy related requests are not that common. Either way though, its literally the letter of the law that every food service place do it. Cross contamination prevention, especially for an allergy, is just basic food service 101. Its a bit frightening that you say youve never seen it anywhere

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Goretantath@lemm.ee -3 points 17 hours ago

If i custom order and its not right and they advertise custom ordering, theyre getting a bad review. This guy is DEATHLY allergic to onions so if the place advertises custom ordering they better give him his million.

load more comments