I’ve had Popeyes’ fried chicken and biscuits a couple of times and, cardiac arrest concerns aside, it never really seemed dangerous. Fried chicken and biscuits. What could possibly go wrong? Plenty. And with that, we have another crazy food lawsuit.

Our “hero” is a lawyer we’ll call “John Doe.” John was driving to his office when he decided to grab lunch at a Popeyes drive-through: beans and rice, 2 chicken breasts, a biscuit and a drink. Now, I want you to visualize this next part. John’s driving his car and eating beans and rice with the spork Popeyes gave him. Next, while still driving, John decides he’s got to have some of that fried chicken that smells so good, but sees that Popeyes takeout doesn’t include a plastic knife. John wants to balance the take-out box on his lap and use a plastic knife and spork to whack off pieces of deep fried chicken breast and jamb them in his mouth – – all while driving. But he’s having trouble because he can’t find a knife. All he’s got is a spork. So he tries eating the chicken anyway.

Now, with these facts, I would have thought a crazy lawsuit would be John crashing his Mercedes while juggling his food and blaming Popeyes. Or maybe John’s lawsuit was that he showed up at his estate and tax planning law practice looking like a complete mess with fried chicken crumb stains all over his shirt, tie and pants – – and that was Popeye’s fault. But nooooo.

John’s complaint, according to the lawsuit he actually filed, was that because he wasn’t given a plastic knife, he was “forced to use his hands” (while driving) to hold the chicken breast to his mouth and rip off pieces of meat with his teeth. This caused him to take too big a bite of chicken, which got caught in his throat, and he had to have emergency surgery to get it out. And that was Popeyes fault. (You can’t make this stuff up).

Now at this point in the world of crazy lawsuits, the food company typically tries to work out something with the crazy plaintiff. Sometimes it’s money. Sometimes it’s as little as a couple of coupons. But none of that happened this time because no one could have foreseen what took place next: Popeyes’ loyal legions “took it to the streets” (virtually) and descended on John in the world of social media – – including John’s very own Facebook page.

Here are some quotes from the fried chicken faithful:

“A lawyer who would do something like this is as slimy as a snake, politician, or Member of Congress!” [Wow]

“I would not trust any case to a person that can’t even eat fried chicken without almost killing himself.”

And here’s my favorite:

Screenshot of a Facebook comment that reads, “You live in the south. How can you not know how to eat fried chicken without cutlery? Seriously dude.”

Now, about this time, John must have realized Popeyes had the right to demand a jury trial, and it looked pretty clear which way the jurors were leaning. So, he dropped his case.

The Food Lawyers® take

Thirty plus years of advising food companies helps me put a goofy case like John’s into perspective:

  1. Lawyers are taught early in their careers to “pass the buck.” You don’t have to win the case for your client if you can shift the cost of the problem to someone else. Here, John figured it would cost him nothing to be a pain to multi-national corporation (3,102 stores in 30 countries) that has more important things to think about. He also figured Popeyes would be willing to pay him off rather than pay their in-house lawyers to defend against John, who they know can hassle the company at no cost. John had a problem and was trying to “pass the buck” to Popeyes. Unfortunately for John, he didn’t figure that his case would go viral, outrage the public, and make him a laughingstock. End of “pass the buck” strategy.
  2. Some people (with an agenda) will say John’s case proves that, “WE NEED TORT REFORM.” Nonsense. Take this from someone who always defends the food industry. The judicial system works just fine. John’s case is a 0.00001% example that doesn’t prove anything. The last thing we need is a bunch of special interest groups and politicians trying to overhaul a legal system that has served the People just fine for over 200 years. Can it be improved? Sure. But John’s chicken-in-throat nonsense isn’t the basis for doing it.
  3. Advice to people who want to “game the system” the way John tried to: Be careful. You might bite off more than you can chew.
Explore Our Expertise