A minor seeks compensatory damages after he says he was struck by a Burger King employee at a Kansas City location of the fast-food chain.
C.M., through his father Jason Moburg, originally filed his complaint this summer in Clay County Circuit Court against Tasty King LLC doing business as Burger King at 3201 NE Barry Road in Kansas City. The defendant filed a motion October 3 to remove the case to federal court.
According to the complaint, the minor plaintiff was a gust at the Burger King on August 25, 2022, with four other people. An unidentified Burger King employee was lying in one of the booths when one of the other four people in the plaintiff’s group threw a napkin at the employee.
“Without confirming whether or not plaintiff was the one who threw the napkin, the employee accidentally struck plaintiff in the ear,” the complaint states. “On information and belief, said employee of defendant has a criminal history, which defendant knew or could have known through the exercise of reasonable care.”
Because of the incident, the minor plaintiff suffered physical injuries, specifically his ear, which required surgery to repair. He says he also has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including but not limited to medical expenses as well as pain and suffering.
He also says he may suffer future damages, including future medical treatment and ongoing pain and suffering relating to the injuries he sustained.
The plaintiff says Burger King owed him a duty of ordinary care to prevent him and other guests from being injured, maimed or harmed on its premises, particularly through acts of its employees. He says the defendant breached that duty.
“The employee of defendant who accidentally struck plaintiff was not qualified for the job he was hired to perform, was not properly trained, was not properly supervised, and/or, on information and belief, possessed a violent criminal history that predisposed him to accidentally strike plaintiff, and defendant knew or could have known about said violent criminal history through the exercise of ordinary care,” the complaint states. “Moreover, the subject employee could have been properly qualified trained, and/or supervised had defendant exercised ordinary care.”
The plaintiff accuses Tasty King of negligence, negligent hiring, negligent training, negligent supervision and premises liability.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against Defendant for actual damages that are fair and reasonable for the injuries sustained, for Plaintiff’s costs herein incurred and expended, together with prejudgment interest, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
“Plaintiff anticipates that defendant claims — or will claim — that the subject employee was off the clock at the time of the incident in which plaintiff was injured,” the complaint states. “Pleading in the alternative, if the subject employee was off the clock at the time of the incident in which plaintiff was injured, defendant was negligent in allowing an individual with a known violent criminal history to loiter in its business premises while off the clock. …
“Defendant had a duty to protect plaintiff against and to warn plaintiff of all known dangerous conditions of the property or those dangerous conditions that may have been revealed by inspection, including the presence of an off-the-clock employee with a known violent criminal history. Allowing said employee to loiter on the premises while off the clock created a dangerous condition that was hazardous for Defendant’s patrons, including plaintiff.”
The plaintiff says he suffered severe physical injuries and psychological trauma. He seeks compensatory damages for past and future medical expenses as well as pain and suffering. He also seeks pre-judgment interest, court costs and other relief.
He is being represented by Eric S. Playter and Chris R. Playter of Playter & Playter in Kansas City. The defendant is being represented by Theodore A. Kardis and Robert Curtis of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker in St. Louis.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri case number 4:24-cv-00643 (Clay County Circuit Court case number 24CY-CV07086)