Restaurant, mother settle suit over hot mashed potatoes

[Catchawave]

CHESAPEAKE — An $8,500 settlement has been tentatively reached between Chili’s Grill and Bar and a local mother who alleged that her 1-year-old son was injured at the restaurant after being served hot mashed potatoes.

Brinker Virginia Inc., the parent company of Chili’s Grill and Bar, filed a petition last week in Chesapeake Circuit Court, seeking the court’s approval of the settlement. A hearing on that request is scheduled for Sept. 7, according to court records.

The mother, Jacqueline Henderson, alleged that her son was burned on the face from “overheated’’ mashed potatoes, according to court records. While dining, the child managed to splash potatoes on his cheek while at the restaurant on Feb. 26, 2005, according to court records.

The mother alleged that the “overheated food’’ was the result of negligence on the part of the restaurant.

more.....

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=90839&ran=40944&tref=y

[youngdem]

1. Uh gee mom, why don't you check my food first?

[mtnester]

2. Fer Gawds sake, as a parent how many TIMES

did I take a bite of food first before my child did? Isn't that in the damned handbook? You don't just give your kid a spoon.

[Catchawave]

9. A one year old is still an infant !

They should call child protection services on Mom ! Also investigate her history with nuisance lawsuits and de-bar her attorney for taking this case!

[RayOfHope]

11. Uh, that is a little harsh

I hope you're being sarcastic, BUT in case you aren't:

It doesn't say mom FED him the potatoes. It says they splashed on hiis cheek. He could have been banging his hands on the table. When you get served food at a restaurant, do you usually think its hot enough to burn skin?

[SemperEadem]

35. anytime anyone put anything in front of my baby

that just came from a kitchen, the first thing I would do is check it, cut it all up, blow on it if it was too hot. I didn't set a plate fresh out of a kitchen down in front of her and expect her to keep her hands out of it.

She was negligent in that fact--I'm sure if the restaurant put luke warm mash in front of her child, she'd want to sue for undercooked food, too.

[NaturalHigh]

3. They should have gone to court.

With such an idiotic lawsuit, they probably could have made her pay their legal fees.

[K-W]

12. Or maybe the lawyers know the case better than you. EOM

[jojo54]

4. I can't stand people who use their kids for profit. Sick, sick, sick. eom

[AngryAmish]

7. The mother won't profit from this

The money is put in trust for the kid.

[lonestarnot]

76. Have you been to the ER lately? w/o insurance?

[jojo54]

94. Not to the ER lately - couldn't afford it.

I understand your question lonestarnot, but the article did not state that the parents have no insurance. Here's the quote: "The money is to be used for the health, education, maintenance and support of the child."

I have no health insurance whatsoever and back in January, when both hub and I had the flu, we had to figure out which one was most sick so that person could go to the doctor because that's all we could afford. As I said, I certainly appreciate your defense of the parents, but you're talking to someone who has only been to the doctor once in 6 years and that's only because my 365 day allergies caused my sinuses to become infected. Don't mean to sound like a bi_ch here, but believe me, I know what's its like to have no insurance and worry about it all the time.

[lonestarnot]

96. Dear JoJo... I have insurance and still can't afford to go! LOL

Parents should taste or test whatever goes in a baby's mouth agree. And do you think for one minute that the Court is going to follow-up on the dispursement of these funds and whether they went to "health, ed, mntnce, support?" Nah...

[mixedview]

5. guess who pays for this ?

We do. The cost gets passed on to the customer.

But this is what the architects of the nanny state want - for society to do their job for them.

[Cassandra]

6. Personally, I think $8,500 is too much...

for a bit of burn cream. How much damage would there have to be before you would be willing to admit that people are entitled to sue. Suing doesn't seem to be a partisan activity; most lawsuits are company against company. Sure, she should have tested her child's food. Why the nanny state comment?

[Gold Metal Flake]

8. What is a "Nanny State"?

Who is the nanny state?

Who are the architects of it?

Who, in this instance, is society?

[mixedview]

17. Nanny state/maternalism is a mentality some parents have

that everyone (except them) has to raise their kids, and that all kids have to be raised in a certain way - their way.


Example of nanny state regulations/laws: smoking bans, anti-porn movement, anti-fast food movement, anti-spanking laws, decency laws, music/tv/video game regulations ...

The parents who advocate for these laws are the architects.

We are society: all of us - businesses, consumers, workers, citizens walking down the street, customers sitting in a restaurant along side them .. basically everyone in society - except the parents themselves, of course.

[bleedingheart]

19. This has to do with the Overreaction and Greed of a Parent

it has nothing to do with the state.

However I guess you are advocating that restaurants be protected from lawsuits?
I disagree. While there are some lawsuits that are "over the top" there are many that are quite legitimate.

[mixedview]

25. "the state" (the gov't) is comprised of citizens, many are parents

No, I'm not advocating restaurants or any other business be protected from lawsuits where there is real harm being done, where a reasonable person acting in a reasonable fashion gets hurt.

Personally, I like my food very hot - no wonder it always comes luke warm even when I ask for it hot - they are afraid some idiot or an idiot's kid burns his/her mouth. Soon restaurants are just going to serve everything on ice just to avoid a lawsuit (but not too cold, don't want to get frostbite :eyes:)

[RayOfHope]

10. It doesn't say she fed them to him or gave him a spoon

Ever been with an active 1 yo at a table? He could have been banging his hands on the table or even wiggling to get down. It said the potatoes splashed.

It's hard to know you'll be served food hot enough to burn your skin.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Logic Problem, Though

Did mom not know that food direct from the kitchen in a restaurant is hot? If the kid was bouncing around, as i agree 1y/o's do, she should have taken control when hot food became part of the equation.

Also, perhaps she should have told the server, "put the mashed by me so i can cool them off." What would possibly be meant by "overheated" mashed potatoes? They're not expected to be hot?

I think this is a clear case of a nuisance lawsuit. The little one got hurt, and mom needed to blame someone for it. Doesn't matter if nobody was at fault.
The Professor

[K-W]

18. Funny you should mention logic.

Did mom not know that food direct from the kitchen in a restaurant is hot?

Do you know how hot the food was? That the food was 'hot' isnt the issue. Of course the food was hot. The issue in such a case is generally how hot the food was.

If the kid was bouncing around, as i agree 1y/o's do, she should have taken control when hot food became part of the equation.

Of course she should have. But that has nothing to do with anything. If I am walking across the street slowly and a driver hits me, I probably should have been walking faster, that doesnt mean the driver isnt responsible for his actions.

I dont know the facts of the case, but whether or not this woman was a model of good parenting during the incident does not tell us whether or not the restuarant was, in some way liable.

Also, perhaps she should have told the server, "put the mashed by me so i can cool them off."

Perhaps she could have put her son in a space suit. Regardless what she could have potentially done isnt terrifically relevant to the issue which is whether or not the restuarant bore some liability. Even if the mom was primarily responsible, it doesnt mean the restaurant acted properly.

What would possibly be meant by "overheated" mashed potatoes? They're not expected to be hot?

I suppose when you are served overcooked food you dont complain because you must have expected it to be cooked.

I think this is a clear case of a nuisance lawsuit.

I think it is clear that you dont have anywhere near enough details about this case to make that judgement.

The little one got hurt, and mom needed to blame someone for it. Doesn't matter if nobody was at fault.

Thats some pretty wild speculation.

[ProfessorGAC]

28. I'm Doing The Wild Speculation??

You've got to be kidding! We can't assume anything because we don't know the facts in the case?

It is a FACT that mashed potatoes are served hot in a restaurant. And, you seem to be struggling with the word "overheated" which is NOT the same as overcooked. Please get a dictionary.

Ever heard of childproofing a house? Me too. Mom wouldn't need a spacesuit to protect the kid. Just put the potatoes out of reach. And you're questioning my logic? Get a clue. And, besides there is a standard in civil law called "voluntary assumption of risk". So, the liability is not extant merely because one is in someone's else's building. Some responsibility does, indeed, fall on the patron. As a result, it does TECHNICALLY have relevance to the liability of the restaurant. Get a copy of Mann & Roberts and read it. You might learn something.

I don't have enough details to make the assumption this is a nuisance lawsuit? You don't know anything about civil law do you? An $8,500 settlement is what big companies do to make a nusiance lawsuit go away. Do a little research, will you?

I know it's possible you think you're doing the noble thing by fighting for the little guy against the big bad corporation. And, i'm all for BAD corporations getting hammered for negligence and culpability. But, of course, they are only bad if they actually do something wrong. It's preposterous for you to assume, given the facts YOU don't know that the restaurant is culpable. But, given the history of civil law over the lats 30 years, this case was handled as a nuisance lawsuit and an awful paltry sum was accepted. It fits the description of a nuisance lawsuit. The settlement fits the description of a nuisance settlement.

And, since we're on the subject of nuisances, please stop reading my posts. It's a nuisance to have to explain things this obvious to you.
The Professor

[K-W]

33. Indeed you are.

You've got to be kidding! We can't assume anything because we don't know the facts in the case?

That would be how a reasonable person would approach this.

It is a FACT that mashed potatoes are served hot in a restaurant.

No shit. When did I say anything that contradicts this? Are you really incapable of understanding that there are different degrees of heat?

And, you seem to be struggling with the word "overheated" which is NOT the same as overcooked. Please get a dictionary.

Nor did I ever say it was the same as overcooked. I was demonstrating that when you put "over" before something it changes the meaning. Expecting something to be hot is not the same as expecting it to be overheated just as expecting something to be cooked is not the same as expecting it to be over cooked.

The word overheated infers that some boundry has been crossed in the degree to which it was hot. A fact you are completely ignoring with your "Didn't she know it was hot?" statements.


Ever heard of childproofing a house? Me too. Mom wouldn't need a spacesuit to protect the kid. Just put the potatoes out of reach. And you're questioning my logic?

You once again missed the point. The point was that it doesnt matter what she might have done to avoid the situation. That doesnt relate to whether or not the restuarant may have had some liability. So yes I am questioning your logic, because it is atrocious.

Get a clue. And, besides there is a standard in civil law called "voluntary assumption of risk". So, the liability is not extant merely because one is in someone's else's building.

No shit, but neither you nor I actually know whether or not the restuarant had any liability. You are assuming it didnt because you have convinced yourself that this woman is a moneygrubber with no case.

You may be right. But you are jumping to conclusions.

Some responsibility does, indeed, fall on the patron. As a result, it does TECHNICALLY have relevance to the liability of the restaurant. Get a copy of Mann & Roberts and read it. You might learn something.

It might, depending entirely on the specific facts of the case. But your argument that because she might have had responsibility, the restuarant must not, is wholly bogus.

I know it's possible you think you're doing the noble thing by fighting for the little guy against the big bad corporation.

Actually, I am not fighting for anyone. As I have made perfectly clear I have no idea what actually happened here so I dont know who is right or wrong. I replied to your post because your arguments were bad and your conclusions based on speculation.

And, i'm all for BAD corporations getting hammered for negligence and culpability. But, of course, they are only bad if they actually do something wrong.

Of course. I agree completely.

It's preposterous for you to assume, given the facts YOU don't know that the restaurant is culpable.

I see your brain has done a backflip.

I never assumed anything. I have said from the very start that I dont know what happened. But because I challenged your assumptions, you assume that I am making the opposite assumptions. Im not.

But, given the history of civil law over the lats 30 years, this case was handled as a nuisance lawsuit and an awful paltry sum was accepted. It fits the description of a nuisance lawsuit. The settlement fits the description of a nuisance settlement.

Yes, this COULD be a nuisance lawsuit. We are in full agreement there. And you are right, the few facts we do have make it look alot like a nuisance settlement. But without the specifics of the case we cant possibly know for sure whether it was a nuisance lawsuit.

Just so we are clear on this. I am not arguing that the restaurant was liable, simply that we do not have enough information to know, and thus should probably not be jumping to conclusions and making judgements about people based on our limited understanding of the case.

[ProfessorGAC]

71. Yawn!

"Just so we are clear on this. I am not arguing that the restaurant was liable, simply that we do not have enough information to know, and thus should probably not be jumping to conclusions and making judgements about people based on our limited understanding of the case."

Oh yes you are! That's the crux of your point, which you apparently missed. That despite it was YOUR point.

You need to read a book on logic. I really don't think you know what it is. This is now boring me. And i don't bore easily. But, you've done it.
The Professor

[K-W]

So now you are calling me a liar because you misread my point.

Maybe I need a book on logic, but you need to learn to read. At no point in this thread have I claimed that I know that the restaurant was liable. I have argued that the restuarant COULD HAVE BEEN liable. And that you cant prove that it wasnt.

Im glad that misreading things bores you. Perhaps you wont do it again in the future.

[patdem]

100. Professor your logic is perfect..except you can overheat mashed potatoes

in a microwave and not 'overcook' them...microwave ovens often overheat food if you microwave it too long and it looks very innocent..in fact the surface might be warm to tepid to the touch, but the inside burning hot. Just saying.

[pitohui]

32. nothing nastier than cold mashed potatoes

the mom doesn't deserve anything

now all must be served miserable cold mashed potatoes because of this

no pity here

one yr old doesn't belong in chili's anyway, it's a freakin' BAR not just a restaurant, i bet most of the profit comes from the fancy drinks

i would love to know mom's background, bet she sues for a hobby & gets these settlements all the time

[bleedingheart]

20. I agree...for instance

I took my daughter to a local amusement park two years ago...she was about 4 years old and get went on a ride with her brother. As she was exiting she was so spastic about getting out of the gate that she didn't realize that the gate was swinging back and it hit her in the head. It gave her a cut that was about a centimeter in length on her forehead...deep enough that it gushed blood all over the place and it required that medical glue to fix it up...

Now I guess I could have sued and blamed the park attendant for not paying attention or securing the gate when the kids were exiting ...but I realized that my high energy 4 year old was also being a bit spazzy...and that while the scar on her forehead may prevent her from supermodeling some day....it is just one of those unfortunate life lessons for her and for me....

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Wow! That's A Bummer

Too bad about your daughter. Sure wish that hadn't happened. But, you do see my point. And, given the small sum offered and accepted, this has all the earmarks of a nuisance lawsuit, the other posters criticism notwithstanding.
The Professor

[wtmusic]

38. Sheesh take some responsibility

WTF? Who's fault is that? Certainly not the restaurant's.

This inability to admit mistakes kinda smells like a certain leader of ours...

[K-W]

41. ignore.

[gollygee]

14. Oh FFS

She has to be living her life looking for opportunities to sue in order for it to occur to her to sue over hot mashed potatoes.

My daughter is 3 and I still check to see how hot her food is before I give it to her. At 1 I would expect anything given to a child would be hotter than they like it.

[DanCa]

15. Hot Mashed potaoes

Jackie Chiles on Kramers? You know people arent going to be happy untill theres not a resturant in sight.

[mtnester]

16. I could not resist...then who is going to COOK?

us wimen?

Sorry :)

:sarcasm: (uh, perhaps not, particularly if the neocons get their way)

[DanCa]

95. lol i cant cook

you've heard of pot roast, i make roast pot.

[jmowreader]

21. Here's why this is a bullshit lawsuit

I did a little probing around on the internet.

It seems that if you get water at 140 degrees F on a one-year-old child, it will cause a third-degree burn in one second. Small children are easily burned, which is why you have your water heater set to 120 degrees F.

I also checked the HACCP standards for restaurant kitchens. HACCP means Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, and it's a really fine way for food suppliers to cut down on foodborne illnesses. Everything in HACCP has a critical limit--the line which absolutely Must Not Be Crossed. For holding perishables, like mashed potatoes, the critical limit is 140 degrees F. The standard also requires that the perishable be raised to 165 degrees F every two hours.

I have eaten at Chili's and they seem very conscientious about food safety; they've got their ServSafe certification and everything. Assume they're not sitting on their critical limit and they run their food holding area at 155 degrees F. So Ms. Henderson orders mashed potatoes for her child. The order goes back to the kitchen and a line cook scoops a lump of these 155-degree potatoes out of the holding area. Between the time the food is removed from the 155-degree container, the Hendersons' order is checked by the kitchen manager, and it's delivered to the table, the temperature of the potatoes may have dropped to 130-135 degrees. When the child splashed the potatoes on his face, it caused (according to the Virginian-Pilot) a pink spot on his cheek that was treated with burn cream. Yeah, 130-degree mashed potatoes will do that.

Hence, a bullshit lawsuit. She sued them for doing everything exactly right. But her precious got a little red mark on his cheek (which was probably gone three days later) so call Perry Mason!

So if it's bullshit, why did Chili's settle? Because settling out of court is cheaper than going to court. If you go to court you have to call in everyone who works at that restaurant and have them give depositions. You have to get out the HACCP manual and turn to the page where it says the critical limit on mashed potatoes is 140 degrees. You then have to get out the child safety manual that says 140-degree things will burn a one-year-old. And you have to put up with plaintiff's attorneys asking 18-year-old kids who've never been up against an attorney the same question five hundred times in the hopes that one of them will give a different answer to it once. It's cheaper to give in than to fight, and the people whose hobbies include Finding Things To Sue Corporations Over know it. They also know that every corporation has a little budget for legal action, and they have Lawsuit Insurance in case someone really goes after them.

[K-W]

23. Except you are just assuming you know what happened.

You dont actually know what happened.

You may be right, but you may not be.

The simple fact is that WE DONT KNOW whether the restuarant was in any way liable or not.

[jmowreader]

34. Okay, here's what I assume happened

At 2:30pm on the date of the incident, someone in the kitchen peeled twenty pounds of potatoes and put them in boiling water. After the potatoes were tender, she drained the water into a "cooking water" container--potato water is full of nutrients, and since the restaurant had to pay for that water, there's no sense in just dumping it down the drain when they can use it to make food with. She mashed the potatoes and put them in a holding pan on a steam table.

The kitchen supervisor has a HACCP worksheet. Every half-hour or so, she uses her pocket thermometer to test the temperature of the potatoes, verifies that the temperature has not fallen below the HACCP critical limit (which is 140 degrees F) and records the temperature on the worksheet. And every two hours, she further checks to ensure that the temperature of the potatoes has been raised to 165 degrees F. I believe there's an upper limit on food temperature in a foodservice situation, and because the Department of Health can stop by unannounced at any time to check the temperature of the held food (and because the energy required to routinely hold food at over 165 degrees F is too expensive), you can expect the potatoes in the holding tray to be between 145 and 160 degrees F. (You'll never see food at the critical limit because it's too easy for something to drop one degree--which, by HACCP standards, means you've got to discard the entire batch. The gas needed to keep food at 145 is cheaper than (1) throwing away 15 pounds of mashed potatoes, (2) risking your health rating, and (3) pissing off 300 people by telling them there's no mashed potatoes for the next 40 minutes while we make a fresh batch.) You wouldn't expect them to hold the potatoes at over 165 degrees F for no other reason than overcooked mashed potatoes don't taste good, and things as trivial as unappetizing mashed potatoes have closed restaurants all over the world.

Sometime after 4pm, the plaintiff brought her family to Chili's to eat. WIth her was a one-year-old male child. The plaintiff ordered mashed potatoes for the child.

When the plaintiff's order was delivered to the kitchen, the items requiring cooking were prepared. After their food was cooked, the items being held were added to the plates. Included in the list of items added to the plates were the serving of mashed potatoes in question.

The plaintiff's order was presented to the kitchen supervisor. She examined the quality of the meals on the plate and the manner of their presentation. When the food had proven itself to meet Chili's quality standards, it was furnished to the plaintiff's server.

The plaintiff's server delivered the potatoes to the plaintiff.

Sometime after the potatoes were delivered, a lump of hot potatoes was made to enter the air and make contact with the one-year-old male child's face. This contact caused a first-degree burn (pink to red skin, first-degree; bright-red skin, second-degree; white, brown, yellow or black skin, third-degree; charred-black skin, fourth-degree) that was treated by a pediatric dermatologist with topical cream on an outpatient basis. Now, professionals can be very wrong (witness the firefighters who called for one hose to put out the fire in the World Trade Center), but when a doctor decides to use a three-dollar tube of burn cream to treat a patient's injury, the injury probably wasn't that severe.

Yes, the mother and the plaintiff's attorney are going to say "the food was overheated." I mean, every plaintiff's attorney in the country has read Liebeck v. McDonalds. The assumption is there that if food causes injury, the food is defective. But I mean, come on! This is a one-year-old child. They have very delicate skin. Food that is cooler than the mandatory HACCP standards allow will burn a one-year-old child.

And like I said, it's cheaper to settle than to go to court.

[K-W]

36. Which is fine and dandy, but it is still an assumption.

Look, I think you are probably right. But the simple fact of the matter is that we dont have enough facts to know definitively what happened.

[jmowreader]

88. And we'll never have those facts

Because so long as the mother is screaming that these potatoes were "defective" and the restaurant was "negligent" even though the potatoes were probably fine and it was just a case of the kid getting splashed by potatoes (tell me YOU weren't burned by hot food as a kid--everyone was) we'll never know.

[K-W]

89. I dont know about that.

I imagine if we wanted to invest the time to investigate this we could find out the truth. And I think the reason we wont is that it is no longer news so nobody will bother reporting the facts.

[Horse with no Name]

22. I guess I missed the boat

Litigating has never been on my mind.
I broke my hand on a ride at Hurricane Harbor and never thought to sue.
Does that mean I have to give back my American citizenship papers?:evilgrin:

[Clintmax]

24. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid!

Lawsuits like this really piss me off! Like the lady who won millions because she spilled hot coffee on herself. I just want to go up to these people and give them a good tongue lashing!

[K-W]

26. Yah, its these people who deserve scorn.

Its not like millions of people game, cheat, and exploit the system to thier benefit every day or anything.

People who sue restaurants are the real problem.

And of course we are much better judges of these cases after reading news blurbs than the actual judges/lawyers/juries involved.

[Pithlet]

27. What pisses me off

is these are the cases that make the news, when the legitimate cases where people who actually are injured due to negligence get almost attention. Right wingers will point to these cases as evidence that tort reform is needed.

[Gold Metal Flake]

30. Hence the term "nanny state".

Then again, we don't know the unknowable, or some shit like that.

[Pithlet]

53. I don't know what this has to do with "nanny state"

It is true that we don't know all the facts of the case. But, it would have to be someting pretty bizarre. It's not hard to keep hot food away from little kids, even at restaurants. There are the occasional waitstaff who will plunk down a hot plate right in front of my kid, but I'm usually able to intercept pretty quickly. At any rate, even if there was some negligence, I don't know if a pink mark on the cheek is worth thousands.

[Gold Metal Flake]

93. I agree.

Sounds like a nuisance suit to me. One jerk, not a "movement".

My kid is nearing 10, and he, like myself at that age (and older, and still sometimes), will pile into dinner before checking heat content. But he never got the chance at age 1. The hot stuff got cooled by one of two attentive parents.

BTW, ever seen mashed potatoes "splash"? I've eaten a lot of mashed potatoes. A lot. Never in my life have I seen mashed potatoes "splash". Maybe if a fist were to slam into the mashed potatoes they might splatter, but never splash. Mashed potatoes that splash are not not mashed potatoes, they are potato soup.

[LostinVA]

31. The reason why I'm tentatively on the mother's side

Remember the infamous McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit when the elderly lady sued after she was severely burned? People have been berating and ridiculing her since then: stupid, frivolous lawsuit, etc. Well, in Morgan Spurlock's book, he talks about this, and about how it was a LEGIT lawsuit. The coffee WAS dangerously hot, and there had already been quite a few complaints about burns and the high temperature of the coffee. I can't remember the numbers,but it was several hundred. After I read this, I googled, and found this was indeed correct. McDonald's WAS liable. The jury was given all of this info, and believed it was proven that MCDonald's knew about the problem but didn't care.

Okay, in the late 80's I waitressed at a regional chain restaurant, and they purposely made the food EXTREMELY hot, because it would often sit around for a few minutes. Maybe the women should have checked, but she also had a reasonable expectation to expect food that was hot, but not dangerously so.

She could be a scammer, or just someone who doesn't want personal responsibility, or she could have a real complaint and wasn't looking for a $80,000 lawsuit. Who knows.


on edit: I forgot: the coffee woman was in the hospital for eight days, had skin grafts, and tried to settle with McDonald's for $20,000. Mcd's refused. So, she got a lawyer. Good for her.

[wtmusic]

37. If you can't take responsibility for holding a cup of hot coffee

you shouldn't go outside. Seriously. :eyes:

[LostinVA]

43. You need to Read the facts of the case

Because your comment shows you don't know them. I absolutely don't mean that bitchy at all, it's just that the facts of this case show this to be patently untrue.

[wtmusic]

44. See #42 nt

[LostinVA]

48. Yeah, I read #42, so what?

You ignored the facts of the case. McDonald's sold an unsafe product KNOWINGLY.

[Pithlet]

55. The McDonalds coffee incident is different.

They were clearly negligent. That's a case that tort reform advocates love to point to as an example, and it's usually because they don't have all the facts or they ignore them.

[DelawareValleyDem]

40. Here's an excellent summary of the Liebeck case

It's a interesting contrast to those who summarily dismiss it as the ultimate frivilous suit.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[wtmusic]

42. I still summarily dismiss it as the ultimate frivolous suit

Holding a styrofoam cup between your legs, then squeezing your legs and spilling the *entire* contents? (I know, if she walked in front of a train, the train was going too fast...)

Here's how we solve this problem:

1) We get a drink holder, available at any McDonald's.
2) We pull the car over and help Granny put her cream and sugar in the coffee.
3) Granny takes a sip before we return the coffee to the drink holder.
4) We proceed on to the church social, where the remainder of the coffee is consumed safely and without threat to our national fabric.

:eyes:

[K-W]

46. That doesnt make any sense.

Whether or not the woman was stupid to put the coffee on her lap has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not her injuries were severe as a result of McDonalds' negligence.

Blame can be shared. She deserves blame for her boneheaded mistake and McDonalds deserves blame for its negligence in not addressing a problem that it knew existed.

[LostinVA]

51. The jury found her 20% liable

[LostinVA]

47. Again, you are ignoring the facts of the case for some reason

The coffee was at an unsafe temp, and McDonald's knew it. Over 700 complaints is alot. They ignored it. They sold an unsafe product, and just because it's "just coffee" doesn't excuse their corporate negligence. Skin grafts are only done in extreme cases, and an 8-day hospital stay is pretty bad.

And, most people who buy coffee at a fast food place or Starbucks drink it on the way.

And, I don't appreciate your "If she walked in front of a train..." comment. You do not know me -- I believe EVERYONE should take personal responsibility, and most corporations don't give a damn about people. This case proves it. The jury found this women 20% liable. I might even go as high as 40%, but the basic facts are that McDonald's sold an unsafe product. "Hot" doesn't mean "scalding."

But, you know all of this, I suspect. Lots of disingenuous people on DU lately.

And, all she wanted was her medical bills paid for and some pain and suffering. $20,000, that's it. That's fair, NOT frivolous.

My lunch is over. Bye.

[wtmusic]

63. Well I guess it's all relative

My "train" comment is 100% apropos to what we're talking about. What if she went outside and got sunburned (because the TV station broadcast the wrong weather forecast?) What if she slipped on a banana peel (because her local public works didn't clean the sidewalks enough?) What if...

I reject your characterization of disingenuity, and I won't accuse you of it either. I just feel you have a ridiculously high allowance for avoiding personal responsibility. To each his/her own.

[petronius]

83. I've always been a bit torn about the McDs case

When coffee is brewed, it comes out of the maker around 170-180F (at least in my maker). So, when you buy coffee you must know that this liquid was dangerously hot in the recent past, and you should treat it accordingly. On the other hand, coffee cools down rapidly, and the customer who knows that the coffee has been on a warmer for a while might have a reasonable expectation that the temperature has dropped significantly below the just-brewed point. My personal preference is for the coffee to be served to me as soon as it is made, and I'll take the responsibility for cooling it down - others may prefer it served cooler and safer, and if most of the industry takes that tack and McDs deviated, then a reasonable person would not have anticipated the danger and McDs erred.

Less seriously, I have to side against McDs for claiming that they are "preserving taste" by keeping the coffee on a burner - you preserve taste by brewing fresh coffee, jerks!

[DelawareValleyDem]

49. Or the problem could be solved

simply by lowering the temperature of the liquid.

"Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn."

*snip*

He (McDonald's quality assurance manager) also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat"

*snip*

"Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit."

Incidentally, she was found partially at fault.

[wtmusic]

64. She was using the product in an unintended manner

Then again, I guess there should be a warning: PLACING A CUP OF HOT COFFEE BETWEEN YOUR LEGS AND SQUEEZING THEM TOGETHER COULD RESULT IN SERIOUS BURNS :D

[fishnfla]

67. In the amount of time it takes to do that

McD's serves another 100,000 cups of coffee, making millions of dollars a week probably on that beverage alone.

All that money and they aint got the smarts to protect themselves from liabilty?

They should've been fined more just for being stupid

[wtmusic]

68. They ended up only having to pay $480G

and they sell $250M worth of coffee every year. A drop in the bucket.

[Redstone]

57. Thank you for pointing that out. Too many people have vilified that woman

unfairly. It was a couple of years after the incident that I found out the facts, so I guess it's not easy to come across the truth in this matter.

Your post will educate a few more people.

Redstone

[progressivebydesign]

39. That is the stupidest fucking lawsuit, ever.

Overheated foods... geez.. you have a child you TEST the temp of the food before they eat it (or apparently smear it on your face!!). I've burned myself numerous times with hot foods from the oven and the microwave.. it was not fatal, it did not require medical treatment, or plastic surgery. That mom needs a big does of "get over it lady".

[Catholic Sensation]

45. The restaurant neglected to cook the potatoes properly by making

them hot? Some lawyers should be disbarred.

[K-W]

50. But, that isnt the actual claim.

The claim is that the food was overheated. That it was heated unneccessarily and dangerously hot.

I suspect that was not the case in this instance, but the argument itself is valid. If the restaurant had been negligent and served overheated food that caused injury it could be actionable.

[Catholic Sensation]

54. and when is it "unnecessarily" hot?

It's an insane claim in my opinion, mashed potatoes are supposed to be served hot, cold mashed potatoes don't taste good. This is like some stupid person spilling coffee on themselves and suing. Cases like this only make "reforming" the legal process look better to the general population.

[K-W]

56. Are you kidding me?

Are you honestly telling me that you dont understand the destinction between reasonably hot and too hot?

Cold? Who on earth said anything about cold?

This isnt brain surgery. Heat can damage human beings. If a business is selling a product that is much hotter than it needs to be, so hot in fact that it can hurt people. And the business knows this or doesnt take the neccessary precautions to avoid it, it very well might be liable for damages caused by that product.

[Catholic Sensation]

60. The fact of the matter is that "too hot" is a relative term

some people can stand it hotter than others, and because a kid's mother either spilled some of this on her kid or if the kid splashed some on him self, the restaurant shouldn't have paid a dime. crap like this makes me hate lawyers.

[K-W]

65. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isnt.

You are ignoring the fact that it is possible for things to be so hot that they fall outside of the range of personal preference or reasonable restuarant temperatures and into dangerous and irresponsible heat.

Why are the crusaders of personal responsibility unable to even imagine that a resturant could be irresponsible with the temperature of its food?

Again, I am not saying this is a case where the food was actionably hot, but to ignore that it is possible is silly.

[The Night Owl]

86. The term "too hot" is relative only to a certain point...

There is a point at which something can be too hot to be handled or consumed safely.

Would anyone in their right mind argue that a restaurant should be allowed to serve coffee or tea at 200 degrees Fahrenheit?

[sakabatou]

52. Stupid, stupid, stupid!

Another frivilous lawsuit. Why don't you check the food first?

[eissa]

58. I just don't get it

I'm not the litigious type at all, but when I was misdiagnosed (I had a blood clot in my leg that my stupid doctor said was an "inflamed vein" -- the darn thing traveled up to my lungs and nearly killed me) I couldn't find one lawyer willing to take my case! I must have called about six of them and each said that since I've recovered and suffer no long-term damage, I didn't have a case. So how do people sue -- and win -- for hot potatoes and spilled coffee?

[Scout]

59. how the hell do you splash mashed potatoes?

unless the kid was splatting his hands into them or something, how do mashed potatoes manage to splash upwards?

I think mom was the problem in this case.

[Blue_Tires]

61. my only consolation is that the sue-happy mother

will only get a fraction of the settlement after the lawyers fees

[Mutley]

62. Aren't mashed potatoes supposed to be hot?

:shrug: That's why you blow on them.

[K-W]

66. She claims it was much hotter than it was supposed to be.

I dont think I buy it, but that is the claim.

[Mutley]

There is a certain temperature that food is supposed to kept be at...

especially food like mashed potatoes which are not made to order, but are made in large batches and sit around, potentially for hours. I believe it is somewhere around 140-150 degrees. It wouldn't be much cooler than that once it reaches the table. I don't think the restaurant should be held liable in this case - it is the responsibility of the mother to keep the food away from her child until it is at a safer temperature.

[K-W]

78. But we dont know the facts of this case.

You are assuming you know the temperature, because you are assuming the restuarant followed standard procedures.

It may have, but we dont know that it did, so we shouldnt assume it did. Obviously if in fact thigns were done according to the proper procedure there is no case, but we cant just assume it was because Chile's says it was.

That would be just as big a mistake as taking the mothers word for it.

She claims the restaurant was liable, the restuarant denies it. Without all the facts we cannot say for sure who is telling the truth, even if her story is fishy.

[Mutley]

80. Perhaps the food was much hotter than it was supposed to be...

But the fact is that even the proper temperature is too hot for a child that young (hell, it's too hot for many adults) and the mother should not have let it anywhere near the child. Safe food temp for an 11 month old is damn near room temperature, and any parent should assume that food will be too hot when it first comes from the kitchen.

[K-W]

85. I agree, but we still dont know the facts.

We dont know exactly what happened with the food. And if it was totally extremely hot, doesnt the resteraunt deserve some of the responsibility.

I am not trying to argue her case, I dont know the facts and my instincts tell me I wouldnt want to argue her case. But a hunch is a hunch. I cant judge the situation based on a hunch.

Basically the validity of her complaint rests on the exact actions of the restaurant and whether at any point it acted in a way that was legally negligent. The article simply does not prove that such an action did not happen, so we cant assume it didnt, regardless of how easy it is to believe that she is completely off base.

[Mutley]

91. You're right. We don't know all the facts.

But my own hunch is that it is very unlikely that the restaurant acted in a negligent way.

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. It's not a matter of the food being overheated.

The server should not have put hot food within reach of a 1 yr old. Simple as that. You don't put hot food in front of infants, any more than you'd put a steak knife in front of one. If the server did this, the restaurant is at fault.

If the child was in an approved child seat, provided by the restaurant, there should have been plenty of room to put the food out of reach. Any server should know this. If the parent then moves the food within reach of the child, it is the parent's fault.

That was one of the first things I learned. Or are servers not trained anymore?

[wtmusic]

70. Chain of responsibility starts with the parents

then then server, then the restaurant. NOT the other way around (unless you feel it's appropriate that "deep pockets" always pay for others' mistakes).

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. Not necessarily.

If the server, because of poor training or own carelessness, put hot food directly within reach of the infant, the server, and therefore the restaurant, is primarily at fault. Maybe the parent could have intercepted the plate before it was placed within reach, but that still makes the parent reactive, not pro-active. OTOH, if the server brought out the food and served it correctly, out of reach of the infant, then it wouldn't matter how hot it was, because the parent would have to place it within reach of the child, obviously making it the parent's fault as the person who directly allowed harm to come to the child.

I suspect, as Chili's settled, that the server was improperly trained and the restaurant knew it.

[wtmusic]

73. Disagree

A parent is always ultimately responsible. I'm a father of two and have been in many situations where boneheaded employees could have harmed my kids. It's your job to look out for it.

[K-W]

74. So parents are to blame even when it isnt thier fault, just because?

What a convincing legal argument.

[wtmusic]

77. ah, but it is their fault

If a one-year-old runs out in the street and gets hit by a car, who is at fault:

1) His/her parents
2) The driver

?

[K-W]

79. It depends on the specifics of the accident. EOM

[DelawareValleyDem]

75. Always?

Well, I'm glad to know that if I run a stop sign and collide with your kids' school bus and they're injured, you won't hold me responsible.

edit for clarity.

[wtmusic]

81. There is a chain of responsibility

and for a one-year-old it starts with the parents.

Let's amend your argument so it's not a straw man. You run a stop sign and hit my car, injuring my kid who was not wearing his/her seat belt. I am at least partially responsible.

The fact is in this case that the mother could/should have been sitting next to the infant. and be ready for something like this. Happens ALL the time. I almost signed my son up for a preschool, then found toxic chemicals open in the restroom, so I took him somewhere else. Goes with the territory. If you can't accept that you shouldn't have kids.

[DelawareValleyDem]

90. Rather than

amend my argument, let's amend your statement that parents are always ultimately responsible. My example was meant to illustrate that there some instances in which a parent can't be held responsible. A simple alteration to your own example also suffices. What if your child WAS safely secured in a rear seat, and you're not violating any traffic laws. Is it still your fault? Are you going to blame yourself for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. Which indicates that you are a very good parent --

a very good parent will FEEL it's his fault when something bad happens to the kids, no matter the actual or legal reality. A bad parent will feel it's the other person's fault, regardless.

But surely you can see the the fault truly lies with the person whose primary action caused the situation. If the parent is distracted for a moment while the server is placing the dishes, if the dish is properly served it makes no difference, while if the dish is improperly served the kid may or may not be injured.

That said, if the parent ALLOWED the plate within reach before testing to see if it was too hot, then the fault is certainly with the parent.

Many years in the food service industry taught me that much, as well as experience as a parent.

[wtmusic]

97. agree, and to toss a compliment back

you're one of the more responsible food servers I've come across. Most of them are not, and as a parent you know that being "distracted for a moment" is all it takes for something really bad to happen.

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. Too true. nt

[Mutley]

84. It is not the responsibility of the restaurant to babysit the child.

As long as the restaurant meets all health and fire code regulations, then that is the end of their responsibility. Unless the server dumps the food directly on the child's head, it is the parent's responsibility to keep the food away from the child.

[K-W]

87. Nobody has suggested it is.

The issue is whether or not the restaurant acted in an negligent way, not whether or not it babysat the child.

[Mutley]

92. Well, the person I responded to said that

it was the server's responisibilty to make sure the food wasn't near the child. I was stating that that is not the case.

[Catchawave]

98. When my kids were that young....

...they never got a full serving of anything at a restaurant, just morsels from my plate, and I would always ask for a small unbreakable dish with my meals :) Come to think of it, I don't think my kids could handle a fork or spoon at 1, they were still picking pieces up with their fingers.

Sooooo, mommy dearest must've fed the flaming potatoes to the baby without testing? Letting a baby eat mashed potatoes with her fingers is too messy for a restaurant anyhow :shrug: I would have ordered french fries.