All I can say is how can a parent be so stupid as to hand a kid in the backseat (so small as to be in a safety seat) a hot chocolate unsupervised and then claim the spill is Starbucks’ fault?
actually, my title may be a misnomer. the suit may have merit if the policy was to have kids’ drinks be not able to burn, so this is more of a “stupid parenting move of the week” for not checking it before giving it to her kid.
INDIANAPOLIS – A central Indiana couple has sued Starbucks Corp., alleging their daughter was severely burned two years ago by hot chocolate that was supposed to be at a safe temperature.
In the lawsuit, Michael and Alexis Brennan allege that a Starbucks store in Fishers incorrectly provided their child an adult hot-chocolate drink after the mother had ordered a child version for her at a drive-through window in November 2004.
According to the lawsuit, Starbucks’ policy at the time was to serve children’s hot chocolate drinks at a lower temperature than that of adult drinks, and that the temperature of children’s drinks was supposed to be incapable of burning skin.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Marion County Superior Court, alleges that Alexis Brennan ordered a child’s hot chocolate with whipped cream and an adult hot chocolate without whipped cream. The suit says Alexis Brennan handed the drink with whipped cream to her daughter, and that when she started driving away from the drive-through window, the drink spilled out of the cup and onto the girl’s lap.
The lawsuit claims that the burn caused skin to fall off one of the girl’s legs, that some of her injuries are permanent, and that the burn resulted in limitation of activity and suffering. It claims the family incurred bills for medical treatment and might incur future medical expenses, and that Starbucks was negligent.
The suit doesn’t mention the girl’s age, but it said she was in a child-restraint seat at the time she was burned.
I don’t think this is stupid at all if those are the facts. Starbuck’s was suppose to sell her a drink that could not burn a child’s skin. Now of course, did she remember to order the child’s hot chocolate? Did she switch the drinks at the car?
Bringing the suit 2 years later indicates to me that she has convinced herself she did nothing wrong. She will have a hard go at this I think.
I clarified this in my second paragraph, the suit may have merit if they broke policy. Either way, it’s stupid parenting. Hot drink to a kid still in a restraining seat? always dumb, kid can’t even jump off seat like she can do at her table at home, she’s strapped in so just sits there and burns while mother finds a place to pull over.
2 yr wait is likely the term of the statute of limitations which is ocassionally stretched to 2-yr limit to ascertain fullest extent of injuries. I wouldn’t read into the filing timing.
other questions:
is it poss that mom gave wrong drink? she’ll obviously say she didn’t
did mom know policy? if she did, she was prob right to rely on it, but does a reas parent check anyway?
did mom not know it? if this is the case, how can she not ask them if it’s hot or check it? idiot.
any bump in road cause the cap to pop off? avoidable? parent have increased duty to drive safer than usual if kid with hot drink, and did she?
how old was kid? if 6+ prob old enough to handle the cup, though I still think it’s dumb for parent to let that happen. if younger than that, very tough for parent to argue kid should ever have a hot drink unsupervised.
I don’t think this is stupid at all if those are the facts.
It’s stupid because as a parent you are responsible for what you give to your children. ESPECIALLY, items that have the capability of bringing harm to your child. Let’s see, HOT chocolate can be HOT. It says so right in the name. Maybe the parent should check the temp before tossing it back to her child. In my opinion, it doesn’t really matter what Starbucks policy was, the parent should have checked prior to giving her child the drink.
very tough for parent to argue kid should ever have a hot drink unsupervised.
Give it to the PI atty who got $6 million for the old lady who had the cup of McDonald’s coffee handed to her. What’s the difference between a very old lady and a very young one? I agree that it was stupid, but yeah, Starbuck’s is gonna bite the big one.
This case is significantly different than the McDonald’s one. You need to do some actual research on the McDonald’s case prior to making these assumptions.
McDonald’s basically had a corporate policy that it was easier to pay for people to get burned than it was to turn down the temp on their coffee.
First off, I do not know the extent of the child’s injuries. However, it reminds me of when I was about 8 or 9 years old. I was making hot chocolate at home. Brought the water to a boil (kettle was wistling). Poured it into a large mug. I think I was standing on a stool at the time. Spilled the mug all over my legs. Severe burns on both theighs. Skin was blistered.
The next day, had a swim meet. Diving into the water from the blocks was not fun. However, all healed up, no scars, no permanent damage.
My kid invariably ends up wearing part of whatever she is drinking. For this reason I taste what she is having (if its a heated beverage). I also have neoprene seat covers and order vanilla if they have it rather than chocolate.
Who the F wants to argue the merits? significantly different my butt. Coffee. Burns. Incapacity. Deep pocket. That’s enough for a jury. I don’t need to do anything, Vitus … er … Tyrius. (What’s with the freaking latin names, anyway?) It’s a forum, not a court of law. And I don’t want to think legal thoughts, I’m on sabbatical. You can’t engage in friendly discussion around here with some airbag sticking it to you personally. WTF.
**** Who the F wants to argue the merits?
Right, it sure is inappropriate to argue the merits of the case being discussed (sarcasm)
It’s a forum, not a court of law.
Seems you would rather talk about someone spilling coffee and whether the plaintiffs can get big pocket to pay up simply b/c a big pocket rather than discuss the strength of the case, which, by the way, is a consideration in any settlement discussion.
And I don’t want to think legal thoughts, I’m on sabbatical.
then here’s an idea, don’t respond to a thread re a lawsuit
You can’t engage in friendly discussion around here with some airbag sticking it to you personally. WTF.
I missed that, I thought all he did was respond in a non-confrontational way. A bit edgy today, are we?
Here is the bulk of a post I made in a previous thread about the McDonald’s case, and it is a completely different case than this one:
"I will highlight some of the important info:
Evidence showed that McDonalds served their coffee so hot to save money. This let them get away with a cheaper grade of coffee and cut down on the number of free refills they had to give away. McDonalds executives testified that they thought it would be cheaper to pay claims and worker’s compensation benefits to people burned by their coffee versus making any of these changes.
Even the trial court judge called McDonalds’ conduct willful, wanton, reckless and callous.
The woman’s injuries were bad:
On to the situation at hand: Stella Liebeck, age 79, was a passenger in the car. The car was at a full stop so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. The cup tipped and spilled over her lap. Within a few seconds, Ms. Liebeck suffered third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, genitals and groin. Ms. Liebeck was hospitalized for 8 days, and required skin grafting and debridement treatments. Parts of Ms. Liebeck’s body were permanently scarred. Ms. Liebeck tried to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. McDonalds offered her $800. She sought mediation, but McDonald’s refused. The jury initially awarded Ms. Liebeck the equivalent of two days worth of coffee sales for McDonalds as punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the verdict to something under $600,000. "
I guess so, that info was courtesy of Urban Legends (www.snopes.com), or at least I think that is where I got it. I remember reading about that case when it happened and was also surprised at the severity of the burns, but McDonald’s had a long list of those types of injuries that they had settled in the past, so it wasn’t just her.
ok ok you’re right. apologies all around. pmsing at my age is tough, ok? nothing that a 2 hr bike & 4 mile run didn’t help.
from the Internet: You put the balm on? Who told you to put the balm on? Starbucks Edition If there is anything we learned following the Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot-coffee case that resulted in an initial $2.9 million personal injury award, it’s that coffee and lawyers are a dangerous combination.
Further evidence: A Manhattan lawyer, Alice Griffin, has just won a $301,000 verdict against Starbucks, after a clerk spilled some coffee on her. Apparently, an underpaid barista — who was probably hung over from his band’s performance the night before — slid a sleeveless cup of coffee toward Griffin (a practice that only bartenders with Coors Light should engage in). The cup tipped over the edge of the counter and spilled all over Griffin’s poor foot, where her shoe and sock trapped the warm liquid inside, resulting in a nasty little burn and early retirement.
The appellate judge, who found the award a bit excessive, upheld it anyway, rejecting Starbucks’ argument that the evidence did not support the judgment. The reason for the large award was because Griffin was also a ballet dancer and the resultant burn caused permanent damage to her foot, rendering her incapable of performing.
interestingly enough, in the Brennan case, Starbucks’ says it’s not liable on the ground that Mrs. Brennan had already driven away from the drive-through window when the spill on her child occurred. Guess it’s depending on some proximate cause theory, like Palsgraf.
Never, ever, ever underestimate how stupid a parent can be. I almost took out a 2.5ft tall kid today b/c he was darting between cars while mom was yabbering on a mobile. (sometimes I wish I would get one to teach mommy a lesson about keeping her kids under control and watching them, but don’t want to have to live with a little kid going bump bump under my car) This past summer we had two or three cars stolen while mom went in to get a coffee etc, left the kid in the car, the car running, came out and like David Copperfield at work the car was gone. Not to mention the kids whose parents forget that they are in the car, get out and lock them in a car when it is 117 outside.
interestingly enough, in the Brennan case, Starbucks’ says it’s not liable on the ground that Mrs. Brennan had already driven away from the drive-through window when the spill on her child occurred. Guess it’s depending on some proximate cause theory, like Palsgraf.
is this like the concrete warranty?
the warranty expires as soon as you leave the concrete?
First, second and third degree burns reflect the damage incurred to the skin, and not as to how the damage occurred. A case in point is several years ago, three young park service workers were returning to their quarters at Yellowstone National Park after dark and inadvertently stepped into one of the hot springs. Two of the three died from third degree burns covering up to 95% of their bodies.
First degree burns are redness indicating skin damage such as incurred by sunburn. Second degree burns include blistering of the skin. Severe sun burn can also cause second degree burns. Ask me how I know. Off hand, I am not sure exactly how much damage constititutes third degree, but it is obviously beyond blistering.
****
If there is anything we learned following the Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot-coffee case that resulted in an initial $2.9 million personal injury award, it’s that coffee and lawyers are a dangerous combination.