By Marcel Strigberger | October 9, 2025
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 did not sit well with Dad. He left, returned with a bottle of gasoline, and set the bar on fire. Damage to property, about $10,000.
Presumably the Spanish criminal code is similar to the Canadian one, 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 have a 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.
Is mayo a vital good or service, dear to Spaniards, like bullfighting. Olé! Who knows?
If the accused if convicted, 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; or
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 sued her employer after taking a 16-year disability leave. Reason? The school had the audacity to ask her to undergo a medical examination. It turns out that she was continuing to get her €72,000 annual salary simply by producing medical certificates from some doctor(s).
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 €10 million.
Yes!…..
The court recently heard the case and found for the defendant, noting that the lady’s refusal to submit to a medical examination was “truly incomprehensible”.
Presumably, the matter will end now. All I can say is I would not want to be in some North Rhine-Westphalia restaurant when this lady walked in and asked for extra mayo.
Originally published in Law360, a division of LexisNexis Canada
Marcel Strigberger is a Toronto-based lawyer, humourist and author, who now devotes his time to being funny and writing after 40 years of balancing these endeavours with a civil litigation practice. His latest book, First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe, is available in eBook and paper versions on Amazon, Indigo, Apple Books, etc., and, Strigberger adds, wherever great books are sold.
RELATED ARTICLES
Recent Developments in AI (Animal Intelligence) and the Law
Even in civil cases, court is no place for chickens
Elephants, cats, and cows, oh my
Socrates v. the Republic of Greece and Olympus Bigpharm Ltd.