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.
Featuring in this community! Because… Onions!
Oh no! NOT THE ONIONS!
The guy ate the onion…
I ABSOLUTELY know who this snowflake voted for.
Remember, the mcdonalds lady got mocked in the media for suing, dont just assume based off of the headlines.
I always side with the underdogs, food allergens need to be respected.
On the one hand, I hate onions. So I totally get it. I wish I could sue every time someone sticks one in my food as a disgusting surprise too.
On the other hand, if you have a food allergy, that is different than just requesting “no onion” on your burger. They have to take steps to prevent cross contamination. It is a whole thing, and he should know that if he is really that allergic. He would be having this issue all the time becuase (as I well know and lament as an onion hater) onions are in a ton of foods everywhere you go.
They would only be negligent and liable if he told them that he was allergic and they claimed to have taken precautions to prevent exposure of his food. If he just asked for no onions and had an allergic reaction because they messed up his order like every fast food restaurant in the world does sometimes, that is not gross negligence, that is a standard accident.
That would be the store’s best defense unless he claimed that the onions needed to be removed because of an allergy.
To the restaurant, it’s just an oops mistake. I’ve very often seen cross-contamination at places which assemble your burger or sub. Those little trays that hold the onions, pickles, lettuce, etc. very often have contamination from one of the neighboring trays.
Also, if he has an allergy to onions, why not check the burger before eating it? It’s not like onions are a hidden ingredient.
This case seems like a nothing burger, tbh. 🤭
If you have a allergy to onions wouldn’t you check a burger before eating it? I mean, who blindly trusts fast food workers that much?
People with an EpiPen and a need for $1m
Back in June 2024, Wilson also sued Sonic for including onions on a burger.
Honestly… It’s not even the sketchiest business model out there.
Really should put him being allergic in the title there.
I once had a friend who claimed to be allergic to onions and his flatmates managed to prove it was a lie… By trying to kill him.
This is a surprisingly common thing that people with food allergies deal with. My partner is allergic to bananas, (they’re closely related to latex, which is an extremely common allergy) and has had anaphylaxis triggered multiple times from people trying to test it. People just randomly hide bananas in gifted food, to see if they’re really allergic. It has happened so many times that my partner actively refuses to eat baked goods unless they saw it get made.
The worst part is that the allergy runs in my partner’s family. So it’s not like they’re the only one who is allergic.
I’m convinced it’s due to projection. The people prone to lying are likely the ones who feel the need to test it, because they assume that everyone else lies a lot too.
You misunderstand. They were genuinely attempting to murder him. He was a kleptomaniac, compulsive liar, antisocial personality disorder. Just a very unpleasant influence in their lives. I think the final straw was when he stole one of their bank cards and emptied their account.
deleted by creator
Given that he is allergic, it’s a reasonable thing to do, isn’t it? Or is the health and safety of people with allergies not relevant?
On the one hand, I agree with you.
On the other hand, if you’re deathly allergic to something as common as onions, you probably shouldn’t rely on fast food workers to keep you alive.
I’ve got a friend with actual Celiac’s disease. To the point where a drop of wheat could be the end of him. He does not take this kind of chance, ever. He trusts me to cook for him, but I care about his existence beyond just being a customer.
I worked fast food for a while. Sometimes we were so busy and understaffed that things became very hectic very quick. More than once, I forgot the meat on a hamburger order.
I can understand, from the employee perspective, how this could happen. It’s very doubtful it was purposeful.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a McDonalds franchise fully staffed. They don’t get enough business to have that many employees, but you can be sure they get enough business that it’s too much for the employees they do have on staff when a rush comes.
On the other hand, if you’re deathly allergic to something as common as onions, you probably shouldn’t rely on fast food workers to keep you alive.
If you’re serving food to the public you should probably be careful not to kill them.
People make mistakes. I’ve been a teenager working in fast food. I would not be trusting them to keep you alive.
It’s a nice ideal, but historically the companies don’t think like that and in most cases the workers don’t get paid enough to be that passionate. 4/5-star restaurants? Sure. Not fast food, though.
Also consider the sheer amount of food orders a fast food place gets in a day, especially with things like DoorDash on top of in-person and drive-thru.
I get where you’re coming from. But I still disagree.
What you describe makes sense from a realistic standpoint BUT I don’t see why we shouldn’t hold corporations to a higher standard since they are selling this exact higher standard to us.
Yes Fastfood workers likely aren’t paid enough to care about customized orders but that isn’t a ME problem. It’s the company’s problem since they can’t keep up with their promises. So time to hold them responsible.
Also my two cents to add to the general issue: if I can’t cater to custom needs or don’t want to, I can still lie to the customer and tell them it’s not possible instead of risking to kill them through my apathy.
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.
Reading the article and only applying the information available in it, this is the individual’s responsibility.
The article states he asked for a no-onion order, not that he notified the restaurant that he had an allergy and needed the onions removed. Asking for an item to be left off and notifying of an allergy are very different because allergy prep is done very specifically.
Also, they had a similar issue at a different restaurant in 2024 that they sued for. If they can demonstrate negligence, which will be hard, then maybe they have a case but if the customer didn’t specify an allergy and didn’t check before eating the burger, then the failure is as much theirs.
When I was a child and learning about traffic safety we were taught that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way over cars but it was stressed that right of way won’t stop a car from killing you if you step into traffic.
I have the feeling that the customer checked for onion before eating (the thick slices are easy to notice, especially if you’re seriously allergic to that) and because his eyes had this reaction 🤑🤑🤑, ate the burger with pleasure.
Especially in an environment where the pace is frantic and the workers are pushed by management to become mindless drones
That’s fine. I’m not necessarily saying it’s a you problem, it’s definitely on the company. Think, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” kinda vibe.
I just distrust both the corporations that are for-profit, and the government we would have to rely on to regulate and help us make them accountable. I just don’t see companies changing for the good of the proles under the current administration, no matter how much we make a stink about it.
I guess my subconscious point is more along the lines of “vote with your wallet” and stop supporting companies that don’t make this kind of thing a priority. There are certainly some fast food companies that actually do care, but I couldn’t name one at the moment.
That’s something I can wholeheartedly agree on!
And that’s why it’s fair to sue them. What you’re describing is callous indifference to the well-being of others that has caused demonstrative harm.
I think everyone agrees on what the fast food place is thinking. The issue is that that line of reasoning is dangerous and has legal penalties.
Think of it with “hand washing” and “fecal coliform bacteria” instead. “It’s too expensive to train our workers to wash their hands after pooping, and most wouldn’t anyway because we don’t pay them enough to care” just isn’t a defense when someone gets sick as a result.
What I’m saying is stop supporting companies that don’t care; stop giving them money and don’t eat there again if they can’t follow your request. I’ll say it a 3rd time, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
That’s not callous indifference, that’s 1) voting with your wallet and 2) trying to promote a little self-reliance.
Just for the record, other people haven’t necessarily seen other comments you’ve made. Acting indignant about that is frustrating.
What’s callous indifference is the company having an attitude that allergy safety is too much work, not thinking you should vote with you wallet.
A lawsuit is part of voting with your wallet. More specifically, giving them a financial incentive to take food safety more seriously.
I seriously doubt the guy is going to go back to either restaurant, so voting with his wallet and not giving them money for a burger is done, and likely doesn’t cover the costs he incurred as a result of their error.
When is a lawsuit appropriate if not after a business decides to cut corners and hurts you?
What’s frustrating is people thinking they can fight a corrupt system from within the corrupt system, playing by their rules. The story of Winston Smith in 1984 is a lesson, not something to model your life after.
Suing someone, if you have the capitol to do so and actually win, doesn’t do a whole lot in the long run and it isn’t accessible to a lot of people because of the cost. It’s part of the operating costs for large corporations these days.
Let’s take Whataburger. Their best year they pulled in $6.7m profit. If you had 7 suits @ $1m payout all occur at the same time and win, then great, you might do something. However, neither of the two cases this guy is suing for have come to a conclusion yet, and it’s just one person. They also still have an income source from patrons that are still buying their product, so they will make it back and they know that.
If you instead spread the word and cut off their income source by raising awareness of it, it becomes much more effective and there’s no BS legal crap going on that can be twisted by lawyers. Just pure loss of profits.
ETA: I repeated my comment precisely because I expected you didn’t dig through all the comments. For those that do read through them all, they know I understand that I’m repeating myself because of all the spawned threads in here.
It can simultaneously be dumb for him to trust the company and for it to be the company’s fault that he was fed something he specifically asked not to be served.
Indeed. I said it in another comment just now, but what I’m getting at is more: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”
if you’re deathly allergic to something as common as onions, you probably shouldn’t rely on fast food workers to keep you alive.
“Probably” is a big deal, though. It’s included in food stamps for a reason - many people, for various reasons, can’t prepare their own meals.
I’m of the same thinking; if there are things that you can’t eat for health reasons, then you should check any food that you didn’t prepare, yourself.
Trust, but verify.
If you verify it every time, you aren’t really trusting the workers
Especially for something this simple.
Lift top bun “oh, this could kill me”
Exactly. Not blaming the victim, pls go ahead and sue the giant corp.
Still, I don’t like cucumbers, so I always take a look in my burger to make sure they got the order right. I’m not blindly trusting a tired 19 year old student worker who’s fighting a hangover. No judgment or anger there, I don’t go to fast food restaurants to get Michelin star food or service.
I’m not aware of wheat being (directly) lethal to those with Celiac’s.
Maybe not directly, but it does have an impact. According to this, it’s got to do with accidental gluten ingestion and a lack of intestinal healing.
https://celiac.org/study-shows-slightly-increased-mortality-in-celiac-disease/
From the end of the article, emphasis mine:
“The great majority of people with celiac disease live long, healthy lives. And yet, the fact that we’re still seeing the signal, even in the most modern era, says that despite the improvement of awareness, increased diagnosis rates and easier access to gluten-free options, there is still a measurable impact on the ultimate outcome, which is mortality in people with celiac disease.”
Maybe there’s a co-morbidity thing going on, but either way my point is he knows there’s a real problem because he’s been hospitalized as a result of eating wheat, so he takes no more chances.
No reason to take chances when the uh, post-ingestion symptoms are so severe. Not exactly gambling on long term consequences. :p
Yeah I unfortunately have celiac along with many people in my family and have never heard of it causing an immediately life threatening reaction. Pain, embarrassment, mental issues, long term mortality, a whole slew of problems but not “I’m going to immediately die”.
I have it as well, thus mentioning my skepticism.
The worst glutening I experienced had some minor hypothermia, but it wasn’t enough for a hospitalization, much less lethal.
I tend to get really bad headaches, body aches, and obviously major stomach issues, it feels like the flu if it’s bad enough and I can potentially feel some lingering effects for a couple weeks. Strangely enough I’ve never had any sort of issue with any kind of wheat or rye based alcohol, even though I know it’s not considered Celiac safe, obviously. I feel almost guilty that I indulge in that stuff once in a while because I know it’s probably not good even if I don’t feel anything, but it’s just never been a problem for whatever reason
It doesn’t say that he’s anaphylactic though, just that he sought out medical treatment. I mean he could have been, but as far as I know anaphylaxis from onions is rather rare. Medical treatment could mean that he had diarrhea and got medication for that.
That being said, I wouldn’t step into a burger place with an onion allergy. Especially since the onion allergene can be airborne. I have a soy allergy and you won’t see me in an Asian restaurant.
That being said, I wouldn’t step into a burger place with an onion allergy. Especially since the onion allergene can be airborne. I have a soy allergy and you won’t see me in an Asian restaurant.
At least you still understood the point. I was just using “deathly allergic” as fuel for the argument.
I felt the same way about the “charged” caffeine lemonade that killed that girl a while back. Regardless of whether it was correctly signed or not, why are people ingesting food and drink they can’t verify won’t fuck them up?
why are people ingesting food and drink they can’t verify won’t fuck them up?
Indeed. Self-reliance is the key here. Don’t expect a money-making business to have your best interests in mind, especially the big players with billions of customers worldwide.
To reference Emerson a 2nd time: The first wealth is health. You alone are responsible for that.
I’m betting this is another example of subrogation..
I’d bet that this guy’s health insurance refuses to pay out unless they can file suit in his name. The overwhelming majority of these bullshit lawsuits only exist because of scumbag insurers.
Remember that lady who sued her nephew? Her medical insurance refused to pay her medical bills unless they were allowed to sue the nephew’s homeowner’s insurance in her name.
Never attribute to the named plaintiff what is adequately explained by subrogation.
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.
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.
When I was working in fast food we got a lot of people telling us that they were deathly allergic to onions. If all of their claims were true then every man woman and child in my city of 300,000 would have to be eating their at least once a week. It’s a major disruption because if someone claims an allergy you have to do a special mini prep just for that order to avoid cross contamination. After a while we collectively just started treating them like regular no onion orders. I’d be shocked if most places didn’t do the same.
When i read the title i knew it was gonna be an allergy thing and yup i was right. Maybe not 1mil but allergies are serious.
Yeah, this story hit me kinda like the McDonald’s hot coffee incident; it seemed silly and frivolous on the surface until you realize just how much danger the person could’ve actually been in.
Though I’m loving the comments in this thread. The arguments over corporate responsibility vs personal responsibility are pretty interesting!
I think if a restauraunt says theyre willing to serve someone with serious alergies they should be suable when they fuck up. But I also know that fast food places mess up orders more often than not, and this guy has sued another fast food place for this, so he knows its dangerous to eat at fast food places but does it anyway presuambly because the benefits outway the consequences…
Fast food places just need a sign that says if “you have a serious alergy, dont eat here” or something a little more nuanced
Damn, he really ate the onion on that one…
Yes, food allergens have to be taken seriously. But if you’re that allergic to something, maybe don’t frequent places that have minimum wage workers making your food?
EDIT: You can’t sue the owner enough to make underpaid workers care any more. Paying them a living wage would.
Very fitting title for this sub indeed.
It was the onion though.
I think this is a rare instance where eating the onion actually fits the /c/ :)
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.
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.
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.
I’d be curious why you think it’s frivolous. Why shouldn’t people use a lawsuit when another hurts them? The civil court system is literally there for disagreements and “you hurt me, make it right”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slipped on pee-pee at the megalomart.
