Parents Sue Starbucks over Kids Hot Chocolate

[KarenMarie]

Since I have never handed my child something warm/hot without first testing the temp for safety, i really don't know how to comment on this woman giving her little kid something that she she did not check first to see if it would be ok.

Thoughts?



Text

Parents sue Starbucks over child's burns
By Diana Penner


A Hancock County couple have filed a lawsuit against Starbucks, accusing a Fishers store of serving scalding hot chocolate that seriously burned their little girl.

Michael and Alexis Brennan filed the suit Tuesday in Marion Superior Court on behalf of their daughter, Rachel.
Rachel's age is not included in the lawsuit, but it says she was in a child restraint seat in the back seat of the family car Nov. 2, 2004, when Alexis Brennan went to the Starbucks at 116th Street and I-69.
Brennan ordered a child's hot chocolate with whipped cream and an adult hot chocolate without whipped cream at the drive-through. According to the lawsuit, Starbucks' policy is to serve child drinks at lower temperature than adult drinks to avoid kids getting burned.
Brennan handed her daughter the child drink, and as she pulled away from the window, it spilled into Rachel's lap.
The child was "screaming in pain," and her mother pulled over, got Rachel out and removed her clothes to find the "skin on Rachel's leg was falling off of her."
She suffered serious burns that required repeated medical attention and could require more medical attention, the lawsuit said. The parents are seeking unspecified damages.
"Starbucks Corporation takes seriously its obligation to provide a safe product to all our customers, and we are truly sympathetic to the Brennan incident that resulted in injuries to this customer's child," Indianapolis-based Borshoff, Johnson and Matthews, a public relations firm representing Starbucks, said in a written statement.
"The incident happened after the vehicle had pulled away from the drive-through window," the statement continued. "While Starbucks regrets this incident, we believe our store partners prepared and served the drink properly and that we are not responsible for the injuries."
A New Mexico woman won $125,000 in damages after being burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1994 while she was in her car.

Call Star reporter Diana Penner at (317) 444-6249.

 

[Homerboy]

hmm tough one. I honestly can say we don't check every thing that goes into the kids' mouths before we give it them. Not knowing the kids age makes it harder here... 3yr old? Check it. 10 yr old? nah...

I can almost see the law suit here.

 

[Savij]

"skin on Rachel's leg was falling off of her"

That might imply that the beverage was served at a temperature too high for human consumption. We're not experts, we have access to a few hundred words of third hand information. We should probably leave the vilification of one party or another to the people who have all of the info.

 

[lrad50]

sounds like Starfucks will be out a few hundred grand.

 

[Mrvile]

Hmm, was the drink really that hot? "The skin was falling off her leg." Hmm...

 

[waggy]

why do people continue to buy HOT items and drive? then they get shocked when they get burned and sue.

 

[TheNinja]

I feel horrible for the kid. First of all, she has serious burns. Secondly her mom is a complete moron.

 

[George P Burdell]

The state should sue them for being ****** parents.

 

[MisterJackson]

I'd never take my kid, let alone myself, in a Starbucks in the first place.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: Savij
"skin on Rachel's leg was falling off of her"

That might imply that the beverage was served at a temperature too high for human consumption. We're not experts, we have access to a few hundred words of third hand information. We should probably leave the vilification of one party or another to the people who have all of the info.

That's just lawyer speak, trumps it up. My lawsuit I had put against me in a car accident where I rear ended a guy going 5mph stated the guy had "extreme pain in his neck and had to be removed from the scene in an ambulance".

 

[KarenMarie]

What I don't understand is how it could be hot enough to make the skin fall off her leg but not hot enough that when mom grabbed the cup she did not feel the heat.

Seriously... I understand that she just assumed that Starbucks would live by their creed in temps for kids drinks and since i was not there, i really cannot say. i am not looking to pass this off as the mom's fault. I just really do not get how it can be hot enough to do serious damage to the kid, but the mom never felt the heat thru the cup and test it.

i am not fan of Starbucks, but this is just really weird to me. I do not appreciate that they are making it look like since the mom had already driven off it is not their fault, though.

I wonder if mom gave the kid her own hot choc by mistake.

 

[Viperoni]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
What I don't understand is how it could be hot enough to make the skin fall off her leg but not hot enough that when mom grabbed the cup she did not feel the heat.

QFT, unless they're super insulated... never bought coffee @ starbucks before so I dunno... and I don't think so either.

YAFLT (Frivolous Lawsuit)

 

[Thraxen]

By just reading the account it sounds like Starbucks is at fault and will get nailed on this one. If it's their policy that kid's hot chocolate be served at a lower temperature then it better be or expect to pay dearly when something like this happens.

 

[Bryophyte]

As a parent, I would have never given a child a drink like that in the car, and would not in any circumstances give a kid a hot drink without trying it first myself to check the temperature. Having said that, Starbucks should not deliver a drink specifically marketed as a "child's" drink that is not at a safe temperature for a child to handle and consume. Everyone is to blame in this fiasco, but the child (who was the only one hurt.)

 

[kranky]

I'm wondering if mom spilled HER drink on the kid and thought of a way to cash in.

 

[Baked]

Another reason I always buy cold beverages instead of boiling hot liquid. Need a kick in the morning? Ice coffee. Oh, an another thing, I don't fricking drink or eat in my car, or while I'm driving.

 

[HN]

i wouldn't be surprised if mom handed the child both drinks to hold onto as she started the car, drove off without taking the adult 'zOMG fleshing eating fire hot' beverage back, and blaming the child-sized beverage for the burn.

 

[Babbles]

If Starbucks did indeed serve the beverage so hot that skin was peeling off of her leg, after going thru some clothing I assume, then they should perhaps be held liable for negligence. Simply because that would have to be totally insane crazy hot. Which, though, does not seem likely.

As far as I can tell the circumstances between this and the already mentioned McDonald's incident are indeed different. It may be that this was just some freak isolated incident that is no way indicative of a constant neglect such as was the case with the McDonald's incident.

I would wager that in reality mom wasn't paying attention to what she was doing and had the bright idea of handing a kid a hot beverage in a moving car.

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: HN
i wouldn't be surprised if mom handed the child both drinks to hold onto as she started the car, drove off without taking the adult 'zOMG fleshing eating fire hot' beverage back, and blaming the child-sized beverage for the burn.

that is making more sense now. i'll be the mom spilled her drink or gave the kid the wrong drink and is now trying to cash in. regardless, the mom has a responsibility as a parent to make sure it was safe for her kid.

 

[mordantmonkey]

Well she did order a "kid's" hot chocolate. Starbuck's even states it's supposed to be served cooler than adult drinks, probably for this exact reason. yeah, she should have tested it first i suppose, but she was trusting that starbuck's would do what they said they would.

 

[yuchai]

What a load of BS. Spilling the beverage is merely an accident and is not even how the product is supposed to be used.

So if you bought scissors meant for children and accidentally dropped them and hurt your child you should sue the manufacturer of the scissors??

Makes absolutely no sense to me.

And I agree with everyone that there's no way to prove that the spilled beverage is from the child's cup and not from the mom's cup.

 

[DrPizza]

Perhaps she stopped and got a drink for her child 4 or 5 times a week. Don't you think that after checking the temperature 40 or 50 times, and it always being suitable for a child, that she might have eventually started to not bother checking? Until you have all of the facts, it's unfair to cast judgement on either party.

 

[HN]

Originally posted by: TheNinja

Originally posted by: HN
i wouldn't be surprised if mom handed the child both drinks to hold onto as she started the car, drove off without taking the adult 'zOMG fleshing eating fire hot' beverage back, and blaming the child-sized beverage for the burn.

that is making more sense now. i'll be the mom spilled her drink or gave the kid the wrong drink and is now trying to cash in. regardless, the mom has a responsibility as a parent to make sure it was safe for her kid.

hmmm...just thought of another scenario:
is there a separate machine for the adult vs. child's size hot chocolate (to control temperature)? if there is, what if the starbucks employee filled both the adult's and child's cups with the same scalding beverage. in that case, i think the mom would have a case she could win (though i believe still frivolous).

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: yuchai
What a load of BS. Spilling the beverage is merely an accident and is not even how the product is supposed to be used.

So if you bought scissors meant for children and accidentally dropped them and hurt your child you should sue the manufacturer of the scissors??

Makes absolutely no sense to me.

And I agree with everyone that there's no way to prove that the spilled beverage is from the child's cup and not from the mom's cup.

That is a very good point. The kids drink is known to NOT be cold. And I do not think it was intended to be comsumed while in a moving car.

 

[jtvang125]

As Starbucks stated the incident happened while they already pulled away from the drivethrough. Not sure how far but once out of sight it's going to be hard to prove this was really an accident or not.