 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
Most of us never heard of Demery Ardell Wilson of Houston, Texas. What you need to know about him is that he is allergic to onions. Demery A. visited a branch of a chain called Whataburger. He ordered a hamburger and allegedly mentioned his onion allergy. To no one’s surprise, there were onions on his burger, resulting in a reaction that required medical attention. And of course he is suing Whataburger for damages, namely, “$250,000 but less than a million dollars.” I have no clue why the quantum is worded this way. I always presumed $250K is less than one million, even in Texas.
I would not have commented on this case but for the fact that this gentleman also has an action pending against another fast-food outfit, namely Sonic-Drive-In, for a similar claim. Given the severity of the allergy, I ask why does he even patronize these restaurants risking a reaction? It’s like going to Red Lobster if you’re allergic to fish or shellfish and saying to the server, “Hold the seafood.”
As three is a charm, I can see him making another dive into some hamburger joint, eat and repeat. If he does, it will look like he is making a career of it. He’ll be known in the courts as “the onion plaintiff.”
Which brings me to Long Beach, Miss., and the coffee. Hot coffee. Joseph Gentry, an 82-year-old gentleman, went through a McDonald’s drive-through and ordered a cup of coffee. Unfortunately, as the server transferred the cup to Gentry, the contents spilled, causing severe burns to the man.
He is suing McDonald’s et al. of course. His claim alleges the defendants were guilty of gross negligence having a “reckless disregard for safety of their customers” and that they need to “adequately train employees.”
I’m not too sure about the adequately trained employees part. It’s not as if the kid did something stupid, like say to the customer, “Coffee is coming. Here, hold this funnel.”
He didn’t even serve him onions.
And does McDonald’s have an ironclad defence here? It seems like since that 1994 hot coffee spill Liebeck case, there have been a good number of similar actions not only involving McDonald’s but other food places as well. So what can they offer as a defence?
They certainly can’t say this unfortunate accident was unforeseeable. Nor can they say it was remote. Hey, you spill scalding coffee on a customer, what do you expect when it lands on his lap? Tickets for two gold seats to a Stanley Cup final?
May I make a suggestion? Stilettos.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif., has a law dating back to 1963 that bans wearing high heels with a height of two inches or more and a base surface area of one square inch or less. The reason is that the city’s sidewalks are very uneven due to the presence of impressive cypresses and pines with roots pushing up the sidewalks. However, you may wear stilettos if you obtain a permit. Many people get this free permit simply as a souvenir as it is an impressive-looking signed certificate. The catch is by getting it you waive away the right to sue the city in the event of a sidewalk trip.
I don’t know if anybody would dare have sued the city, anyway — certainly not while Clint Eastwood was mayor. I’ve watched Dirty Harry, and I didn’t like the looks of his Magnum.
My suggestion is that McDonald’s and similar outfits offer an introductory free coffee to anyone who first gets a Carmel-by-the-Sea-type permit. I’m sure there would easily be a billion takers. (For any readers from Texas, that’s greater than a million.) How’s that sound? Win-win, eh?
The question now is, how do we deal with a possible recurrence of an allergic reaction by Demery Ardell Wilson or others? Frankly, I don’t know. I have neither the time nor the skills on this one to peel back the onion.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X: @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.