- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jury Awards $800,000 to a Girl Burned by a Chicken McNugget....
Posted on 7/21/23 at 9:00 pm to SammyTiger
Posted on 7/21/23 at 9:00 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
I dont think you should be served food hot enough to give you 2nd degree burns.
I dont think that’s an unfair standard of care. most people expect if they’re handed something it won’t melt their flesh.
I inagine the number here will come down in appeal but idk what Florida punitive laws are like.
What % is mom at fault for not checking food before handing it back to a 4 year old to eat in back of car and for letting it melt her daughter’s flesh for roughly 2 minutes?
Still not sure how one nugget out the box handed back got wedged against the kid’s leg so completely that the kid couldn’t moved leg away for around 2 minutes while nugget continued to burn one spot on leg, but what is a normal length of time a kid’s parent should have taken to remove something doing that to her kid’s leg an arm’s length away?
2
Posted on 7/21/23 at 9:30 pm to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
The mother is ordering chicken nuggets fried in hot oil
why, before leaving the drive thru window, does she toss the box of hot chicken nuggets to her 4 year old autistic kid who is in the back seat instead of
1 pulling over and checking contents before serving to the kids?
or
2 waiting until they get home?
why, before leaving the drive thru window, does she toss the box of hot chicken nuggets to her 4 year old autistic kid who is in the back seat instead of
1 pulling over and checking contents before serving to the kids?
or
2 waiting until they get home?
Posted on 7/21/23 at 9:41 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:
mental anguish
WTF? For those who have better knowledge of the law how can you prove this?
When I was 10... 11 years old I had a jumping jack firecracker jump in my jacket and burned the absolute shite out of me. My mom had to cut off dead skin and patch me up.. A few days later when looking at it she says "I probably should have brought you to the hospital, some of the burns look like they could be 3rd degree".. Life went on, it healed up, but I still have a scar..
How can something like a 2nd degree burn from a chicken nugget result in $800k in damages?
Posted on 7/21/23 at 9:46 pm to OweO
you voted for it
Posted on 7/21/23 at 9:46 pm to Eurocat
McDonald's coffee was pushing 190 degrees in the cup. That is astoundingly hot.
Posted on 7/21/23 at 11:32 pm to dallastigers
we’re talking about the standard of care. what’s McDonalds duty to its customers?
do you think “our food won’t give you 2nd degree burns” is too high of a bar?
do you think “our food won’t give you 2nd degree burns” is too high of a bar?
Posted on 7/22/23 at 1:24 am to SammyTiger
quote:
we’re talking about the standard of care. what’s McDonalds duty to its customers?
do you think “our food won’t give you 2nd degree burns” is too high of a bar?
First off I have not seen much proof to distinguish between the parents saying it was 200 degrees and location says it was 160 degrees.
Second anyone who has ordered fried hot food from a restaurant knows it can actually be too hot to hand entire thing back to a 4 year old without checking it out yourself. I wouldn’t hand back entire meal to mine unless my wife was back there as well, and if no one back with kid I would hand one piece at a time on way home to finish meal there (held up to air from AC first if too hot especially the fries). Not sure how old her son was at the time, but with 2 young children in back including one who is autistic just pushing meals back to them to deal with themselves is not responsible especially without checking them first. Would have to be mentally deficient to not understand the concept.
Would it have given 2nd burns if quickly removed like most mothers that close to child would have immediately done?
Wedged against kid’s leg for 2 minutes is ridiculous. What was mom doing for those 2 minutes finishing her own food? Or like in court room staring at her phone before dealing with her kid? Once the mom reacted she did know to focus on taking pictures of wound and recording screams while daughter was still in car seat versus actually helping her daughter. $uch motherly instinct$…
But this is Broward county, so I guess a warning of “Nuggets are not meant to be pressed between a seat belt and human flesh for more than two minutes” does need to placed on all chicken McNuggets containers.
I guess the son was lucky his happy meal wasn’t too hot.
Posted on 7/22/23 at 1:28 am to SlowFlowPro
you’re so smart Jake
Posted on 7/22/23 at 4:45 am to dallastigers
quote:
What % is mom at fault for not checking food before handing it back to a 4 year old to eat in back of car and for letting it melt her daughter’s flesh for roughly 2 minutes?
I haven't seen anything about the case other than the headline articles but the percentage of negligence would have been presented to the jury.
Prior to a couple of months ago* Florida was a pure comparative negligence state. So a jury that found a defendant liable for negligence would also determine the percentage of negligence for the defendant and the plaintiff. The total award would be reduced by the amount of the plaintiff's contribution. So if the jury determined the plaintiff was 55% at fault and the total damages were $1 the plaintiff would receive an award of 45 cents from the defendant.
Again I haven't read any in-depth coverage of the verdict but the percentage of fault would have been a jury question.
* Earlier this year Florida changed to modified comparative negligence. It functions just like pure comparative negligence up until the jury finds the plaintiff more than 50% at fault. When they find the plaintiff more than 50% at fault the plaintiff receives nothing. Since this case was filed before the change it would have been decided under the pure comparative negligence rules.
Posted on 7/22/23 at 6:13 am to SteelerBravesDawg
Guess she didn’t put the balm on.
Posted on 7/22/23 at 12:53 pm to dallastigers
again, do you think it’s an unfair standard to ask restaurants to not serve food that’s way too hot?
people run stop signs. it’s a good idea to watch for people running stop signs, but the person who runs a stop sign and hits you is still at fault.
people run stop signs. it’s a good idea to watch for people running stop signs, but the person who runs a stop sign and hits you is still at fault.
Posted on 7/22/23 at 1:10 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
do you think it’s an unfair standard to ask restaurants to not serve food that’s way too hot?
No, probably not for a huge corporation like McDonalds. But what is too hot? You can say "industry standards". But they're McDonald's. They set the standards. This case sounds different than the coffee case in the 90s. At the end of the day you have to put most of the blame on the idiot mother here. Especially when you figure in that the girl was autistic. I check the temperature of food before I give it to my dog. What kind of worthless mother hands her autistic little daughter a flaming-hot chicken nugget and turns her loose? Jesus Christ.
Posted on 7/22/23 at 1:55 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
again, do you think it’s an unfair standard to ask restaurants to not serve food that’s way too hot?
people run stop signs. it’s a good idea to watch for people running stop signs, but the person who runs a stop sign and hits you is still at fault.
Again what proof is there that it was too hot to hand to an adult inside a couple of containers?
It’s not like they threw it at the mom straight out of the fryer (it was a transaction between the adults). How long can you wedge something 160 degrees against the skin and still be ok?
Since you brought up stop sign laws with what is Florida law on this? Should McDs have been cited by police or should you try another example?
Edit: adding some info I just read. I thought I saw the document for the award yesterday (half for past issues, half for future issues), but I could not find it today. I wanted to see how if award was split between franchise holder and McDonalds Corp since product not defective and McDonalds Corp wasn’t held negligent for burn injury.
quote:
… decision was split, with jurors finding the franchise holder liable for negligence and failure to warn customers about the risk of hot food, and McDonald’s USA liable for failing to provide instructions for safe handling of the food. McDonald’s USA was not found to be negligent, and the jury dismissed the argument that the product was defective.
…They did not find McDonald’s actions to be negligent for the burn incident...
quote:
Defense attorneys for McDonald's argued the child's wound healed after about three weeks and suffered no further discomfort so $156,000 should cover damages, both past and future. They also contended that the girl's mother was bothered by the scar.
"She’s still going to McDonald's, she still asks to go to McDonald’s, she’s still driving through the drive-thru with her mom, getting chicken nuggets," defense attorney Jennifer Miller said in her closing argument Wednesday. "She’s not bothered by the injury. This is all the mom."
The company testified they followed food safety rules, requiring McNuggets to be hot enough to avoid salmonella poisoning and that their use outside the restaurant was no longer under their control.
This post was edited on 7/22/23 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 7/22/23 at 2:04 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
Once again, Parents fail with their responsibility and expect others to pay.
Momma gets a new Mercedes, kid gets a snickers....
Momma gets a new Mercedes, kid gets a snickers....
This post was edited on 7/22/23 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 7/22/23 at 3:22 pm to dallastigers
You keep avoiding the real question, should restaurant be service people food that’s way too hot to eat and will injure them without at least a warning?
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to assume when you get food from somewhere it won’t melt you.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to assume when you get food from somewhere it won’t melt you.
Posted on 7/22/23 at 3:52 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
I'm gonna run into McDonalds through their window like one of those infected from 28 days later.
Payday
Payday
Posted on 7/22/23 at 3:58 pm to bopper50
quote:
Momma gets a new Mercedes, kid gets a snickers....
Very unlikely most states require a guardian ad litem for underage or mentally incompetent plaintiffs who recover through settlement or verdict. If it is a settlement it normally has to be approved by a judge. Normally the proceeds will be put into a trust until the minor is 18, there are circumstances where money can be approved by the guardian ad litem prior to the 18th birthday but it ain't gonna for mom to get a new S class. Things like medical bills, possibly tuition, accessibility appliances, or renovations, and similar are about the only things the GAL will normally approve.
Posted on 7/22/23 at 4:03 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
Lawyers and p###y juries have ruined our country.
Just look at the get-rich-quick billboards
Just look at the get-rich-quick billboards
Posted on 7/22/23 at 4:11 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
You keep avoiding the real question, should restaurant be service people food that’s way too hot to eat and will injure them without at least a warning?
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to assume when you get food from somewhere it won’t melt you.
What was done has been enough and reasonable for decades. Why is not reasonable to you now?
Assuming you understand that fast food isn’t being tossed to people out the window into their mouths like at the zoo, Do you think some people more than others are just too ignorant to understand how hot food works?
And do you think that some Parents more than others aren’t responsible for what they feed or hand their kids or how slowly they react to their kid being harmed right behind them?
In this particular incident once again do you think severity of burn had anything to do with the 2 minutes it was wedged against the kid’s leg while the mother did nothing?
This post was edited on 7/22/23 at 6:58 pm
Posted on 7/22/23 at 4:22 pm to dallastigers
So Dallas, what record are you combing to look for the evidence you claim is lacking?
And do you hold the restaurant, which prepared the food and profits by its sale to the same standard as you want to impose on the mom? That is, did the restaurant have a duty to check its own product to see if it was too hot before handing it to the mom? If not, why not?
There are two issues here, liability and quantum.
It seems pretty clear McD's violated its duty of care and was liable.
But the damage award was plainly excessive and likely to be adjusted.
And do you hold the restaurant, which prepared the food and profits by its sale to the same standard as you want to impose on the mom? That is, did the restaurant have a duty to check its own product to see if it was too hot before handing it to the mom? If not, why not?
There are two issues here, liability and quantum.
It seems pretty clear McD's violated its duty of care and was liable.
But the damage award was plainly excessive and likely to be adjusted.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News