Michael Jordan look alike

Dugger statements he suffered a "severe hypersensitive reaction" to your condiments, costing him thousands of dollars in medical bills and forcing him to miss work.

His "particular request the omission of onions, pickles and tomatoes had not been complied with, " the lawsuit claims, the report reported.

Lawyers for Dugger therefore the Burger King franchise would not return demands opinion.

An identical suit against McDonald's ended up being recently dismissed. Jeromy Jackson sued the fast food chain for ten dollars million after he said he'd a serious hypersensitive reaction into cheese on their one-fourth pounder, in accordance with the Charleston Gazette.

He reported he was ensured their hamburger wouldn't have mozzarella cheese. In a lawsuit submitted in 2007, he alleged he "was just moments from demise" by the time he reached a healthcare facility.

Scalding Coffee Leads to Lawsuit

Perhaps one of the most popular lawsuits, which became the poster youngster for those who advocate for reforms to lessen jury verdicts, was a result of McDonald's coffee.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, N.M., ended up being severely burned because of the string's coffee in February 1992. Her attorney argued your hot coffee ended up being unreasonably dangerous.

Liebeck, then 79 years old, had set a glass between her feet while sitting in a parked vehicle. She spent per week into the hospital, then came back per month later on for epidermis grafts to heal the 2nd- and third-degree burns off, in line with the Legal Times.

A jury awarded Liebeck a lot more than $2 million. The judge paid down the full total award to about $640, 000. The two edges settled off courtroom for an undisclosed amount.

The $54 Million Pants

Previous Washington, D.C., Administrative Judge Roy Pearson made headlines in 2007 when he sued a local dried out cleaner, saying it had lost a prized pair of pants he in the pipeline to put on on their first day on the workbench in 2005. Pearson at first requested $67 million but later on decreased that to $54 million.

The bad bloodstream between the client and shop goes back to 2002, whenever Pearson stated an initial set of pants had disappeared from dry cleansers. The people who own the dried out cleansers, Jin and Soo Chung, provided Pearson a $150 check for a new pair of jeans and Pearson was banned from store, the Chungs' lawyer stated.

36 months later on, Pearson stated he gone back to Custom Cleaners and another couple of trousers moved missing. It absolutely was might 2005 and Pearson ended up being going to begin their new job as an administrative judge. He said in courtroom filings he wanted to use a pleasant outfit to their first day of work.

Pearson stated he introduced one couple of pants set for modifications as well as disappeared — gray pants by what Pearson described in judge documents as blue and purple stripes in it. The dry cleaning bill had been $10.50.

First, Pearson demanded $1, 150 for an innovative new fit. Solicitors had been hired, legal wrangling ensued and finally the Chungs supplied Pearson $3, 000 in compensation. Chances are they offered him $4, 600. Finally, they supplied $12, 000 for lacking gray pants using purple and blue stripes.

Citing the District of Columbia's customer protection laws, Pearson stated he was entitled to $1, 500 per infraction — every day that the "happiness Guaranteed" and "exact same Day Service" indications were up into the shop. It had been over 1, 200 days.

He multiplied each violation by three because he sued Jin and Soo Chung and their boy. With another $1 million for psychological damages and more for appropriate charges, that brought Pearson to their original $67 million claim.

The test proved almost because remarkable and strange as the plaintiff's claims. On experience stand, Pearson smashed straight down in tears while testifying about his experience with the missing trousers. Because he served as their own lawyer, Pearson wept during a question-and-answer session with himself.

In his opening statement, Pearson told the judge, "nothing you've seen prior in recorded record have actually a group of defendants engaged in such inaccurate and unjust company practices."

The $54 Million Laptop

Perhaps Raelyn Campbell ended up being prompted by Pearson's costly pants.

Most readily useful purchase provided Campbell $1, 110 and a $500 gift card in payment, which she refused, according to a web log she devoted to the suit.

The scenario ended up being in the course of time dismissed.

Florist Reveal's Married Man's Event

a married guy sued 1-800-Flowers for $1 million in Aug. 2007 for revealing which he had been cheating on his partner.

Leroy Greer said in case recorded in a federal judge in Tx which he bought plants for their girlfriend through 1-800-Flowers. He requested maintain his purchase private.

Greer stated he was regarded the company's privacy policy, which states that customers can ask 1-800-Flowers to not ever share information that is personal with "3rd parties."

But, the suit says, 1-800-Flowers sent a thank-you note to their house along with his wife saw it. Whenever she called the organization, 1-800-Flowers faxed this lady a duplicate of receipt from Greer's secret buy.

The bill unveiled that Greer had delivered another woman twelve long-stemmed red flowers, alongside a note that read, "Just wanted to say that I love both you and you mean the entire world if you ask me!" based on court papers.

The few was already going right on through exactly what Greer's lawyer described as an amicable divorce.

After mastering of this event, Greer's partner asked for a $300, 000 separation and divorce settlement and child support, said Kennitra Foote, Greer's attorney.

"That thank-you note is going to cost him money, " Foote said.

Greer requested $1 million for breach of contract and misleading trade techniques.

A 1-800-Flowers spokesman said the organization will not comment on pending litigation. In a statement, spokesman Steven Jarmon said, "We take-all issues regarding our customers seriously; however, we are maybe not responsible for an individual's private conduct."

Newspaper Reader Sues Over Layoffs

When paper reader Keith Hempstead discovered your Raleigh Information & Observer had been cutting its staff and its own protection, he don't only get mad. He filed case.