Portland Man Locked in Burger King Bathroom Says Company Reneged on Offer of Free Whoppers for Life

[TexasTowelie]

When a faulty lock trapped Curtis Brooner in the restroom of a Northeast Portland Burger King for an hour, he says the foul experience came with a windfall: The fast-food restaurant's manager offered him free meals for life.

Now Brooner is suing Burger King in Multnomah County Circuit Court, saying the company reneged on the deal.

The lawsuit, filed today, seeks a court order forcing Burger King to honor its offer, or damages of $9,026.16. That's the cost of buying one Whopper combo a week for the next 22 years.

"It's an honor issue," Brooner tells WW. "They could have said, 'The next meal is free,' and that would have ended it. But that's not the deal they made."

Read more: https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2019/01/01/portland-man-locked-in-burger-king-bathroom-says-company-reneged-on-offer-of-free-whoppers-for-life/

[democratisphere]

1. Sounds like BS.

Way to much compensation for being locked in a bathroom for an hour.

[Bob Loblaw]

4. Have you ever eaten a Whopper?

The compensation sounds only like additional punishment to the victim.

[flor-de-jasmim]

2. Neither is several million for coffee that is too hot.

Legal compensations are not necessarily logical. Actually, claiming only one meal per week sounds like a reasonable comedown from a possible 7 meals per week!

[Bilegurken]

3. I beg to differ on the coffee story

That woman suffered 3rd degree burns all over her lower body. The coffee was practically boiling. I used to think that too, then I researched the case and watched a documentary on it. Essentially people are like "coffee is hot!", which is true, but it misses the severity of that particular case.

[Locrian]

5. absolutely

there are quite a few cases like this that corporations have demonized to downplay their irresponsibility.

https://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/truth-behind-mcdonalds-hot-coffee-lawsuit.html

[Boomer]

6. Put this to rest!

I'm so tired of the mischaracterization of that case. The coffee was not just "too hot", it created serious burns. The judgment was sound, as was the legal compensation.

[CozyMystery]

7. The coffee case was a products liability lawsuit

Read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

An excerpt:

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[11]

Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[12] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg) (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter.[13] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.

[Throck]

8. Someone is telling a Whopper.