Life

Kit Kats, Mozzarella Sticks, And More Food Fails That Got Litigious

On Monday, the world of commercial candy products was rocked when Nestle was publicly called out for providing a 20-year-old college student a package of Kit Kats that wasn’t up to par. Forget the fact that they didn’t gold-plate it, there weren’t even any wafers. But while others might be satisfied to just idly complain on Twitter, Saima Ahmad has boldly (and righteously) demanded that Kit Kat provide her with a lifetime supply of chocolate. If they don’t, she said she might just sue — which quickly prompted responses of “that’s outrageous” and “don’t these young people have anything better to do with their lives?” until everyone realized that Ahmad’s threats were just a teensy bit tongue-in-cheek.

But Kit Kat Gate did get us thinking: Is Ahmad’s lawsuit the wackiest food-related lawsuit threat we’ve ever seen? Not by a longshot. It isn’t even the wackiest suit this week —  McDonald’s is now getting sued for their cheese-less mozzarella sicks.

Here are five more lawsuits that tried to take on big food and beverage:

The Man Who Sued because He Got Burned While Praying Over Fajitas At Applebee’s

fajitas
Shutterstock

Let’s be real: Applebee’s is delicious. But it’s also all sorts of dangerous. They’ve got hot soups, hot chocolate syrup, and definitely hot fajitas (which literally come to you on a sizzling platter which the server still reminds you is going to be “a little hot”). But some people just don’t listen, like a New Jersey man who bowed his head in prayer over his sizzling fajitas and got burned as a result.

Here’s what happened:

The man said he bowed his head, then heard a loud sizzle followed by a grease pop. He then felt a burning sensation in his left eye and on his face.

The man said he panicked and knocked the food on his lap, causing more burns. The burns didn’t cause scarring.

Seeing his opportunity to own the entire chain, the man sued for damages (prayers answered!) and lost. And then appellate court upheld the decision, pointing out that even if a server didn’t warn him that the food was hot, it was an “open and obvious danger.” That means that the smoke emanating from the meat and vegetables the guy was about to enjoy should have been enough warning to not get his face all up in it. You know what would be great? If the judge had handed down the ruling with the statement “if you can’t handle the heat, don’t order the fajitas.”

×