The Next McDonald’s Coffee Case?
posted by Dave Hoffman
[An Indiana couple] have filed a lawsuit against Starbucks, accusing a [local] 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.
Obviously, the kinds of cases that get turned (by certain interest groups) into urban legends about the tort system can’t be easily predicted. Some facts about this case – Starbuck’s policy of usually not serving hot drinks to children, the uncomfortable fact that the victim is a child and not an adult, and the alleged severe burns suffered – all might combine to make it less likely that norm entrepreneurs will seize upon this case as an example of the system run amok. But you never know – I did find the case on the Drudge Report, after all.
November 17, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Posted in: Tort Law
Print This Post
Responses (8)
Venkat - November 18, 2006 at 1:15 am
I have to say I’m skeptical of the case. One reason I don’t go to Starbucks (aside from the fact that they don’t do coffee “cuban” style – with sugar melted in the espresso) is that they don’t do extra hot.
Maybe the machine malfunctioned or the employee screwed up. My understanding from talking to a few Baristas is that their machines totally control things like temperature.
I’m sure some lawyer will take it up, but as you note, that’s neither here nor there.
Rob Hyndman - November 18, 2006 at 6:16 am
I simply don’t understand why any parent would drive their car with their young child in the back holding a hot beverage.
Jack S. - November 18, 2006 at 10:39 am
So much for the parent taking any responsibility for their actions. Hot chocolate is supposed to be served, well, umm, hot.
The child was in a child seat meaning their coordination skills are probably not up to what an adult’s would be in order to hold on to a cup while the parent is pulling away from the drive-thru. Seems like this will be a critical fact for who is indeed at fault.
I feel sorry for the child to have parents like that.
Marisa - November 18, 2006 at 11:51 am
FYI from a former Starbucks barista: Who or what controls the temperature depends on whether the store uses the new espresso machines or not. The baristas control the temp of the steamed milk when using the old, traditional machines. I’m told the new machines are automated to stop on their own at a certain temp. Either way, Starbucks’ training and policies are one thing, while employee actions are completely separate. The appropriate temp of even normal, adult espresso drinks shouldn’t scald like that (I’ve spilled enough on me to know).
Matt - November 18, 2006 at 4:02 pm
I’ve long thought that starbucks was the McDonald’s of coffee, and now I guess that’s true in another way as well.
Jesse - November 18, 2006 at 5:33 pm
What a irresponsible parent. What dummy hands a child a hot beverage in a moving car? Feel sorry for the kid having such a dope for a mom.
Nora - November 30, 2006 at 8:36 pm
I agree with Jesse (above) but I think it’s a double-edged sword– even if the drink DID spill, it should not have been that hot anyway. and why was it that hot to begin with? If it burned the girl then she shouldn’t be expected to drink it. Poor little kid.
Sceptic - February 18, 2007 at 7:50 am
I agree entirely with the views expressed (inferred) about the need to return to a concept of personal responsibilty in situations where there is no inherent or hidden vice in the product. Suppliers/manufacturers are being unfairly penalised. Hit them only when they are at fault, completely or partially.
Leave a Reply