Can hotheads keep lawyers busy?
A 50ish gentleman visited a restaurant with his son in Seville Spain. They ordered two sandwiches. Dad asked for mayo. Waiter said they were out. This answer did not sit well with the man.. He left and returned with a bottle of gasoline and set the bar on fire. Damage to property, about $10,000.
Presumably the Spanish version of their criminal code is similar to the Canadian one likely reading something like:
“S. 433 — Anybody who intentionally or recklessly causes damage to property by fire is guilty of arson”.
But is a conviction in this case a slam dunk? Does the man possibly have any defence? Maybe he does. Otherwise, why would the guy torch the place?
Perhaps Spain has a proviso, to wit:
“The offence of arson is not made out if the fire is set in a restaurant which does not have mayonnaise”
Just maybe mayo is one of these vital goods or services, dear to Spaniards, like bullfighting. Olé! Who knows?
If guilty I imagine the court will sentence him with general deterrence in mind. His actions have certainly put the fear of the Lord into restaurant owners.
If a suspicious-looking customer came into my restaurant and ordered a burger and asked for mustard, I’d say, “No problem sir. Will that be regular or Dijon?”
I also see even bigger problems for the restauranter regarding a fire damage insurance claim. It would not surprise me at all if there is an exclusion in the policy reading,
“29 (1) There will be no coverage in the event that the fire damage is caused directly or indirectly as a result of the insured,
a) failing to have a functioning smoke alarm system,
b) not installing a sprinkler installation or
c) having a shortage of mayonnaise.”
Crazy world? It gets crazier.
A teacher in North Rhine-Westphalia Germany has sued her employer after taking a 16-year disability leave. Reason? The school had the audacity to ask her to undergo a medical examination. All along she was simply delivering medical certificates from some doctor(s), and getting her annual salary of about 72,000 euros.
I wonder what her statement of claim looked like:
1.The plaintiff is a poor teacher suffering from a serious and permanent disability.
2. The defendant is a wealthy school which paid her stipend for only 16 years.
3. The defendant recently had the cheek, gumption and chutzpah to request the plaintiff to undergo a medical examination, notwithstanding the medical certificates she has been filing monthly from the eminent Dr. Munchausen.
4. In so extorting the plaintiff, the defendant acted egregiously, scandalously and nefariously.
5. The plaintiff seeks punitive damages in the amount of ten million euros.
Yes!…..
The court recently heard the case and found for the defendant, noting that the lady’s refusal was “truly incomprehensible.”
Presumably, the matter will end now. All I can say is I would not want to be in some restaurant in North Rhine-Westphalia and this lady walks in and asks for extra mayo.
Originally published in Law360-division of lexisNexis Canada