A simple question at the root of this week’s Sunday Musings post… Should the man who’s bringing suit against Whataburger over onions that made him sick accept at least some of the blame for what he alleges was a failure to uphold an ‘appropriate standard of care’’?
Classic Whataburger: Should a man who suffered an allergic reaction have taken
at least some responsibility to ensure the burger was, indeed, free of onions?
What happened?
The incident was pretty straightforward. I don’ think anyone would dispute that the burger in question DID, in fact, contain onions, after Texan Demery Ardell Wilson specifically ordered it without onions.
Neither would any reasonable person dispute the claim that Wilson suffered ”serious personal injuries’ that required medical care. There are undoubtedly plenty of witnesses – including the EMTs who attended the scene.
But who was ultimately responsible for the man’s ‘potentially life threatening’ anaphylactic shock?
On one hand…
Let’s start by stipulating that… The restaurant delivered into the man’s hands a burger not as ordered. The burger did contain onions. And the man got sick.
On the other hand…
Did the man check his burger to ensure it was, indeed, onion free before biting into it? Let’s stipulate that he did not. But no reasonable person would risk ‘serious personal injuries’ in such a situation if he thought was was ANY chance there were onions on the burger. Would they?
But who was ultimately responsible for ensuring the burger was onion-free?
Not a courtroom procedural
This is a food blog post, not an episode of Law & Order. I don’t want to get into hair-splitting legal arguments. But…
Is it reasonable to assume the man knew there were onions on the resto premises?
Is it reasonable to assume the man knew onions were usually served on the burger he ordered?
Is it reasonable to assume the man knew it was possible that said onions could, under certain circumstances, find their way onto his burger?
My questions to you:
Is it reasonable for the man to expect the restaurant to accept full responsibility for the presence of onions on his burger?
In the end, is it reasonable to expect the man should have taken a moment to check for the presence of onions in his burger before biting into it?
Is it reasonable to assume the man, himself, also failed to exercise ‘due care and caution’ in the incident?
Muse on that…
~ Maggie J.