Parents Sue Starbucks over Kids Hot Chocolate

[Vich]

Who THE HELL GIVES A CHILD THAT IS STILLIN THE CARSEAT A CUP OF HOTCHOCOLATE WITHOUT THE BABY SAFETY LID, THEN DRIVES AWAY.


PARENTS ARE MORONS

/THREAD

CAPS IS ON BECAUSE IT IS NEEDED. I AM ACTUALLY YELLING.

 

[Brentx]

Hmm let's see... this drink is called Hot Choclote! What do they expect it to be, cold? The fault completely lies within the parents. Even if it is served at lower temperatures it is probably going to be enough to burn.

I would never give a kid a hot drink, even if it is sold for kids. They might end up spilling it and hurting themselves.

It's like if I was to sell a hammer for kids. Even if the hammer is made smaller there's no telling what the kid will do with it, including smashing their hands with it.

Stupid parents.... they can't take the responsibility for something the f'ed up on so lets blame it on someone else and SUE!

 

[Yossarian]

Who told you to put the balm on? I didn't tell you to put the balm on.

 

[villageidiot111]

Originally posted by: 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.

That is like saying that after strapping her child into a safety seat every time for five years straight without an accident she got bored with it and just let the child use a normal seat belt. Accidents are the exception, not the norm, and thus repetition without incident is to be expected. You shouldn't stop being cautious just because nothing has happened yet.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Yossarian
Who told you to put the balm on? I didn't tell you to put the balm on.

Mistro? who the hell is the Mistro? I've never heard of a damn Mistro!

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: 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.

I've spilled boiling water on my arm before and my skin did not peel off. And this was boiling water. There is no way that the hot chocolate is hotter than that.

 

[911paramedic]

I already have to ask for it "extra, extra hot" to even get a warm mocha, now it will be stone fooking cold as the default temp.

 

[suse920]

not that i think this story is valid or anything but i dont think adult skin is equal to young children's skin. Adult skin is not nearly as sensitives as young children's.

However i think that this is the mothers fault. the negligence was on her part imo

 

[Midlander]

This is a travesty. Having raised three kids, I can tell you that I NEVER gave any of them a hot liquid without testing it first. When we bought hot chocolate, we would get ice water, too, and dilute it to cool it down (Dad got to drink some to make room ).

Further, I don't believe her "skin... was falling off."

Why is it always someone else's fault?

 

[Platypus]

Ridiculous lawsuit, it's not Starbucks' responsibility to parent your children for you. I worked at starbucks years ago and when we made the kids hot chocolate, we'd always put cold milk into it before serving it so I find this hard to believe.. more like she ordered a small normal hot chocolate.... not to mention how did she grab it for her daughter and not feel something hot enough to remove skin (drinks were served at 160 degrees by default, which won't remove your skin. I spilled stuff much hotter than that on myself there before) so this had to be like blazing hot like 190 or so?

Either way, this parent needs to be a good mother and test anything remotely hot before serving it to a child, that's just straight up neglect.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: 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.

I've spilled boiling water on my arm before and my skin did not peel off. And this was boiling water. There is no way that the hot chocolate is hotter than that.

The skin on your arms is pretty strong compared to some other parts of the body

When I worked in a fastfood restaurant, I had a accident where a coffee pot spilt hot water on my neck, I had severe second degree burns and NO I DID NOT SUE. But if that same water hit my arm, it would not have been that severe. I had a huge scar covering half my neck for years that finally faded.

I am assuming a young kids skin is a lot weaker than a grown mans skin on their arm

 

[T9D]

The stupid moms driving skills should be in question if anything. And her judgement for giving the child a hot beverage while driving.

 

[akshatp]

It rubs the lotion on its skin...

oops, wrong forum

 

[George P Burdell]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Hmm, was the drink really that hot? "The skin was falling off her leg." Hmm...

That's just hype. Even if you try and make a drink that hot, it will evaporate before reaching said temperature.

 

[arkcom]

Even if it was boiling (100 c) it would take a couple hours after the fact for skin to be "falling off." I mean even with third degree burns, its gonna blister like crazy before falling off....