In Moscow, a man sues Burger King after dental injury from a foreign object in a cheeseburger
In the summer of 2020, a man visiting a Burger King restaurant near Kurskaya metro station in central Moscow reported a troubling incident involving a foreign object found inside a cheeseburger. The stone inside the sandwich reportedly caused damage to the man’s tooth, prompting him to file a complaint with the restaurant’s management. The store leadership acknowledged the grievance, initiating the internal review that typically follows such reports.
Following the initial inquiry, the affected customer turned to the public health and consumer protection body, Rospotrebnadzor, to detail the sequence of events and seek guidance on the next steps. He also pursued legal action, seeking compensation that reflected both direct medical costs and broader damages. Specifically, he requested 75 thousand rubles for personal losses and inconvenience, plus 300 thousand rubles to cover anticipated dental treatment costs. Additionally, he claimed 42 thousand rubles for legal expenses and other related costs incurred in pursuing the case.
The legal proceedings resulted in a partial ruling in favor of the plaintiff. Burger King was ordered to pay a sum of 60 thousand rubles as compensation. While this decision provided some relief, the plaintiff indicated an intent to continue legal action to secure the full amount of compensation he had originally claimed. The evolving case highlights ongoing concerns about food safety and consumer redress in the fast-food sector, as well as the process by which victims seek remedy through both administrative channels and the courts.
Earlier reports have noted parallel cases involving compensation for injuries in educational settings, illustrating the broader landscape of consumer and public safety disputes across Russia. In one such case, a first-year student was awarded a payment after an incident on school premises, underscoring how civil actions can span multiple environments and types of institutions. These examples collectively reflect a pattern where individuals pursue compensation through a combination of administrative channels and litigation when safety or quality concerns arise in daily life.