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.

  • Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Yeah but isn’t it a criminal act to poison someone with something they are allergic against, if the victim specifically informed the restaurant about the allergy?

    I mean, if I was allergic, I wouldn’t trust the restaurant either, but that doesn’t mean that the restaurant can just ignore people’s allergies. This all sounds like structural discrimination of people with certain health issues to me.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 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.