Alleging that he found a condom in a Whopper, a man sues Burger King. The restaurant counter-sues, and suddenly both suits are dismissed. Are there odd goings on in the fast food industry or is the find of off-menu ingredients a money-grab?
Is that a Condom in Your Whopper?
The Press Telegram reports that a 2007 Vermont resident, who sued a Burger King over allegedly biting into a condom in his Whopper, has dropped the suit. Concurrently, the eatery agreed to drop its counter suit. Quoting the Associated Press, the Press Telegram points out that each party will pay its own attorneys’ fees, that the initial plaintiff is incommunicado and that the court record will be sealed.
If this makes it look like there is an awful lot of secrecy over a three-year court case that originated with a condom in fast food, the assertion by the restaurant’s owner-operator may shed some light on the issue. He proclaims that surveillance video evidence coupled with forensics prove that the condom in question did not come from Burger King.
Is that a Finger in Your Chili?
Is it possible that the 2007 condom-in-fast-food finder took a page from the playbook of the 2005 Wendy’s customer who alleged finding a human finger in her chili? Fox News, quoting the Associated Press, reported back then that the would-be plaintiff had a track record of making claims against deep pocket venues. The finger in the chili never made it through the court system, since the plaintiff decided against pursuing the case due to “emotional distress.”
Meritless Deep Pocket Suits or Entirely Possible Happenings?
In spite of the spin put on the issue by the Burger King owner’s assertion and the track record of the Wendy’s would-be plaintiff, there are times when a condom or other foreign object may indeed be found in restaurant food. Take for example the 2009 case of the condom in the French onion soup.
KTLA reports that this particular treat was served up in an Orange County Claim Jumper. The case ended with a settlement and an apology by Claim Jumper for media statements that cast the plaintiffs “in an unfavorable light.” Is it possible that the restaurant is referring to allegations over back-taxes owed by the plaintiffs?
In today’s litigious society it is overly simple to claim that there is a finger or condom in fast food — with the hopes of scoring quick cash from the restaurant to make the allegation go away. Lost in the shuffle are bona fide suits over actual fast food ingredients that don’t show up on the menu.
Press Telegram: “‘Condom in Whopper’ lawsuit is dropped”
Fox News: “Fast-Food Finger Finder Drops Lawsuit”
KTLA: “Settlement Reached in ‘Condom in Soup’ Case”