HOUSTON — Mushroom tea was not on the menu at Denny’s when Dominique Cunningham dined there, which led her to sue the restaurant for mental anguish damages when she found one in the teapot.
On Aug. 6, the 14th Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment win in favor of Denny’s. The restaurant had argued there was no-evidence to support Cunningham’s claim.
According to the opinion, in March 2024 Cunningham visited a Denny’s in Houston and ordered tea. She alleges that after pouring from the teapot and consuming her tea, she saw a cooked mushroom inside the teapot’s spout, which upset her.
Based on the placement of the mushroom in the teapot, Cunnigham concluded the mushroom was intentionally placed there. She sued Denny’s, Inc., the franchisor for the local restaurant, and claimed mental anguish but did not allege any physical injuries from the incident.
Denny’s filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting Cunningham had no evidence of duty or breach of duty or compensable damages.
“At the hearing, when the trial court asked Cunningham whether she became sick, had food poisoning, or experienced an allergic reaction to the mushroom, Cunningham responded she was offended by the intentionality of being served a teapot that contained a mushroom in it,” the opinion states.
“Cunningham explained she ‘got really upset’ after she discovered the mushroom. Cunningham explained further to the trial court that she has a sensitive mentality regarding edibles and she is ‘partially germaphobic.’”
Cunningham did not argue or present any evidence of a physical injury. The trial court granted a final no-evidence summary judgment for Denny’s, leading her to appeal.
“In her brief, Cunningham raises two issues, but none challenges the grounds on which Denny’s, Inc. moved for no-evidence summary judgment,” the opinion states. “None of Cunningham’s issues presents a legal basis on which this court may reverse the trial court’s no-evidence summary judgment under Texas law.
“Having overruled both of appellant’s issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s final judgment.”
Cunningham represented herself.
Appeals case No. 14-25-00898-CV
