first coffeee, now McNugets

According to the article, "both sides agreed the nugget caused the burns..." So McDonald's admitted that part. If anything, your experience of never getting one that hot would be favorable to plaintiff because it would indicate that customers do not reasonably anticipate the nuggets to be served that hot.

 

I found this interesting:

Lawyers for McDonald’s noted that the food had to be hot to avoid salmonella poisoning, and that the nuggets were not meant to be pressed between a seat belt and human flesh for more than two minutes.

My initial thought, before reading the full story was that the McNuggets shouldn't be so hot that they cause burns by simply dropping on your leg. However, if one somehow got caught between the seatbelt and her bare leg, I wouldn't hold McDonald's responsible if they cooked it to their standard temperature and it took the mom 2 minutes to get to it.

 

131 degrees to produce 2nd degree burns

 

Btw, the coffee spill required the woman to stay in hospital for 8 days, skin grafts & permanent disfigurement. Also “documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.”

 

Its pretty easy to get a 2nd degree burn, touching a hot pan would do it

 

If I recall correctly, that woman only sued as last recourse because McDonald's refused to cover her hospital bills for the injuries.

 

I thought conservatives were cool with frivolous lawsuits now, or is that only if they are against teachers, theme parks or reporters?

 

I mean… do ever you cook for yourself? How do you function?

It’s not difficult to imagine how scalding hot water or something cooked in hot oil or grease could burn someone, even severely.

Usually it’s a non-issue because you aren’t literally taking something straight out of a fryer and putting it in your mouth as that would burn the hell out of the inside of your mouth. There’s generally enough delay that even if it’s still “hot”, you won’t burn your mouth with it. But even with a typical delay, pressing something hot and greasy against your skin for 2 minutes might still sear the flesh.

The question would be, who is more to blame for such a bizarre scenario, McDonalds… or the mother? I’d go with the mother as this was not something McDonalds should have to foresee. Although it wouldn’t be too crazy to decide McD is partially liable or had some shared liability. The coffee case as the article points out is like an urban legend, but as mentioned it had merit and a judge later knocked down the final award. Unlike the scalding temp of the coffee, the “nugget stuck in seatbelt” seems a crazy/random scenario… a one off.

 

According to the article, the coffee lady originally only asked for $20k for legit healthcare costs. When it went to trial the jury awarded $2.7 million to include punitive damages (judge later knocked down to $480k).

Sounds like McD had some expensive corporate lawyers demonstrate how to most effectively plead a misdemeanor up to a felony.

 

I hate lawsuits like this. I hope they lose.

 

Meh.

It seems to me it would be more the mother’s fault for not paying attention.

But part of my opinion about the suit’s “merit” would be what are they asking for? Did they have legitimate medical bills? Not unreasonable to seek those, just as in the hot coffee case, it’s never unreasonable to seek real damages. Once it goes all the way to trial, all bets are off and punitive damages and lawyers fees come into play. On the other hand, to declare the nugget a “defective product” seems a huge reach (well… it’s a defective product alright, just not in this way).

 

I can see plenty of parents handing kids their food so they can get back to driving and get home, it would be hard to anticipate a freak accident like that. If she went to the store and asked them to cover medical expenses, and they blew her off, I can see why maybe you'd sue given the cost of any kind of medical care. It would be interesting to know how the suit came about, I dont think many people think of their kid getting burned as a quick payday.

 

I realize you don't understand how this all works, but BOTH sides have lawyers and lawyers rarely sit on juries.

 

I don’t fault the mother for handing the chicken McNuggets to her kid. Don’t necessarily fault McDonalds either. The chicken only burned her because it was caught between the seat belt and her skin for an extended period of time. Freak accidents happen sometimes and not sure any side has to plan for it.

 

Accidents are called accidents for a reason.

Seems this case is an unfortunate set of facts for the little girl but I’m not sure how McDonalds is supposed to reasonably foresee a hot nugget being directly compressed by the seat belt against her exposed skin for up to 2 minutes.