|
Submitted by Petitioner Ken Barnhouse
Amended toppings: toppings at Juror's discretion
Session held on Tuesday, December 15 at 11:00 a.m.
Cause of Action (meat quality): 3.83/5.00
Proximate Cause (bun, toppings quality): 3.58/5.00
Ancillary Issues (quality of sides, atmosphere, extras): 3.33/5.00
Final Verdict (overall): 3.50/5.00
Summary Judgment
As we bid a fond farewell to 2009 (don't let the door hit ya on the way out!) and make our new year's resolution to start exercising again for the next couple weeks or so, let's all take a moment to remember all of the tasty burgers we tried in 2009 and look forward to the many more we have to judge in 2010. What did we learn? That when most people say they like a burger place with divey atmosphere, they really mean they want a nice, clean air-conditioned and sanitized room with lots o' crazy crap on the wall that looks divey enough. And it better not be pricey. Who's Who Burgers was many of these things but not quite enough of them to unseat the current leader, Twisted Root Burger Co., and its kobe burger didn't quite deliver enough bang for the buck for some of the jurors. So, in the spirit of the new decade and while we still try to decide what the heck to call this past decade (the aughties? the 00's? the naughties?), let's see what the jury had to say:
Most of the jurors gave the kobe burger high marks for the quality of its meat, which one juror noted provided "amazingly good taste from a thin meat patty" while another juror stated simply that it was a "very yummy burger." A few jurors strongly dissented that the burger "tasted much like any other thin non-descript greasy burger that I would normally pay half the price, not a big fan of Kobe (neither the Laker nor the meat)." Justice Lowenburger filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting from any Kobe-related humor: "note that I am not making a Kobe Bryant joke. Unlike the burger, that would be tasteless."
Proximate Cause:
The proximate cause also received generally high ratings from the jurors with the toppings getting good feedback -- one juror said the "toppings make the burger" and others noted the "lettuce-tomato-pickle-onion kind of mushed together in a way that worked" and was "almost too much for the bun to hold together, but somehow it did." Still, one juror felt that the "lettuce, onion, tomato just did not seem as fresh." Comments were mixed on the bun, which was grilled on both sides, with one juror finding the "slightly greasy bun... a kind of guilty pleasure" while another felt it "made for one slippery when wet eating experience," which the Court will assume is not a good thing.
Ancillary Issues:
Ancillary Issues was relatively the lowest rated category for Who's Who Burgers although it still rated well overall. A large divergence of opinion was discernable regarding the regular french fries, which one juror noted "were firm, well sized with a good crisp crunch" and this Justice found to be "dipped in liquid crack because they were magically addictive" while Justice Lowenburger opined that the "fries were bland and forgettable, needed Tabasco to liven things up." Another juror tried the Sweet Potato Fries and "found the fries to be very good and but for the $3.65 price tag I would go back for more." And yet another juror who tried the onion rings felt they were "nice and crispy." The atmosphere also received mixed reviews with jurors praising the "great view of HP Village Shoppers at their seasonal best" and "regular folk out and about, running errands of necessity on their lunch breaks" while other jurors found fault with the "minimal interior" and "being forced to sit next to strangers on communal tables." One juror summed up many of the jurors feelings about the interior by stating "it was cold in there (both in terms of temperature and overall atmosphere) making me long for the comforts of my car."
Final Verdict:
The final verdict on Who's Who Burgers places it comfortably in second place with the most comon theme of criticism among the jury being the high price in comparison to the value they felt they got. Still, the timing of the visit clearly put many jurors in the holiday spirit, as one juror noted "an unmistakeable sense of harmony began to suffuse that happy space where I sat, lending a feeling of all being right in the burger world...a feeling of peace and goodwill towards man." However, this didn't prevent another juror from saying bah humbug to the prices, "It was a good burger, but if I’m paying that much, I want the atmosphere to be spectacular."
It is so ordered, this 31st day of December 2009, that everyone have a safe and happy new year!
Justice Hamderson |
