Boy gets €70,000 for Hot Chocolate Burn

rgodard80a

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Liam Neeson would sort this out in a jiffy

Because the claimants are black?

Yer Da sells Avon

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Liam Neeson would sort this out in a jiffy

He'd go around killing women in green/teal dresses for a week.

TomSweeney

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

This is a picture of the burns the woman who sued McDonalds suffered. I won't embed it because it's fairly graphic.

http://deshawlaw.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/hotcoffeejpeg-2534403_p9-1.jpg

I'm not saying the boy was burned as severely as this, but people are still laughing about that woman and using her as an example of frivolous lawsuits without having any idea of the extent of her injuries.

backspin.

Another ridiculous claim this time by a Garda, what sort of Guards are we hiring these days. They seem to be claiming for any sort of skirmish they get into in the course of a job they must have known would not be like sitting in a safe warm office.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garda-who-was-kicked-and-injured-by-woman-in-patrol-car-awarded-40k-damages-37785045.html

tretorn

That Garda is only in her thirties according to the Indo, she looks about sixty.

jay0109

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Aer Lingus settled for the amount. Nowt to do with the judge.

It's everything to do with the Judges of this country. And their colleagues who practice law.
It's such a lottery, most defendants feel they have no choice to settle for fear of the outcome if they go to a full hearing.

It shouldn't be a lottery

wyf437gn6btzue

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

They settled in the expectation of losing.

Yeah, losing less money trying to fight a thick claim by even thicker individuals. I don`t back any form wealth tax but would happy back a (hefty) tax on claim payouts

Cee-Jay-Cee

Aer Lingus should now sue the parents for failing to take adequate care of their child while on the flight. Children require adult supervision on a flight for these very reasons. Stupid greedy fcuking parents, I wish them no luck with any of the money.

rgodard80a

backspin. wrote: »

Another ridiculous claim this time by a Garda, what sort of Guards are we hiring these days. They seem to be claiming for any sort of skirmish they get into in the course of a job they must have known would not be like sitting in a safe warm office.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garda-who-was-kicked-and-injured-by-woman-in-patrol-car-awarded-40k-damages-37785045.html

In fairness it looks like she took quite a beating.

Blaizes

It's a huge payout alright.I'd just be delighted my child was okay and had no serious or long term damage to their leg.Sue no way but a letter to the airline suggesting ways in which they could improve re safe cups or some other way to serve the hot liquid.

I'm surprised more burns like this don't happen on flights as handing over steaming hot drinks is a clumsy and cumbersome enough process in a very confined space. But if no serious damage why sue.

OldMrBrennan83

Blaizes wrote: »

It's a huge payout alright.I'd just be delighted my child was okay and had no serious or long term damage to their leg.Sue no way but a letter to the airline suggesting ways in which they could improve re safe cups or some other way to serve the hot liquid.

I'm surprised more burns like this don't happen on flights as handing over steaming hot drinks is a clumsy and cumbersome enough process in a very confined space. But if no serious damage why sue.

Because they're in the right country for a near guaranteed windfall of free money.

Blaizes

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Because they're in the right country for a near guaranteed windfall of free money.

I just can't even understand that mentality, it's wrong on every level.But yes keep hearing about the claim mentality here.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Don't hot drinks have to be served at a certain minimum temperature due to health and safety of the contents, ie: can't be served at a temperature that germs/bacteria could grow in?

But, it's another fine example of lack of personal responsibility and bad parenting. A: What idiot thinks a hot drink is drinkable the second you get it? B: Why didn't the father put in the milk and make sure the lid was secure?

The minumum temperature wouldn’t be that high, I think. I’d imagine 60 degrees C would be sufficient though don’t quote me on it.

Demonique

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

This may sound crazy but there's a possibility it did actually burn him. That woman in America who sued McDonalds over the hot coffee is often used an example of ridiculous law suits but the coffee did genuinely burn her very badly.

Maybe this boy was burned pretty badly too, or maybe not. I just wouldn't make a judgement based on that article.

I heard she got third degrees burns and her skin was melted so badly that her vulva was sealed shut.

You can see the injuries here (note you can't see her genitals) - https://www.jacksonandwilson.com/images/blog/stella-2-300x191.jpg

Demonique

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah plus i think part of it ended up being them treating her so badly about it - she only wanted basic medical costs covered but they dug the heels in

From what I heard the judge had several instances of severe scalds caused by McDonalds making their coffee far too hot come in front of him before, he fined them each time, but they continued to make scalding coffee, this case was the straw that broke the camel's back, he was sick of McDonalds scald cases so he responded by rewarding the woman $16m

Franz Von Peppercorn

The macdonalds case it totally different. 3rd degree burns are much more severe.

hatrickpatrick

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

This may sound crazy but there's a possibility it did actually burn him. That woman in America who sued McDonalds over the hot coffee is often used an example of ridiculous law suits but the coffee did genuinely burn her very badly.

Maybe this boy was burned pretty badly too, or maybe not. I just wouldn't make a judgement based on that article.

But in both cases, they spilled it on themselves - spilled something which they bought in the full knowledge that it's supposed to be served at a near boiling temperature, since that's the whole basis of the drink. Most people would agree that the person selling the drink should in no way be held responsible for what people who choose to purchase it, with full knowledge of the fact that it's designed to be served hot, choose to do (or do accidentally) after the fact of having purchased it.

It's a bit like the story last week about nightclubs being so expensive because of people slipping and suing - I'd imagine most reasonable folks would agree that when you choose to get drunkenly un-coordinated, or wear shoes which increase your risk of falling, or dance wildly in a crowded space, it's on you if you fall and injure yourself. Not on anyone else - unless there were extra circumstances beyond those you were fully aware of going in, such as an unmarked slippery floor, or being pushed by another person.

It seems that most people agree on these things, so in a democratic society why is it apparently so impossible to do anything about it other than indirect mitigation? Why can't we literally pass legislation which absolves businesses of responsibility for accidents which happen because of a customer's clumsiness? Nobody seems to be actually ok with the status quo, politicians included, and yet somehow it seems to be *impossible* to actually change the law on this. What's up with that?

Pauliedragon

How hard is it to come up with legislation wherby anyone injured and a company is found liable gets any medical expenses, any loss of income for time out of work and maybe a few grand if it's a serious injury and that's it?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Something that hasn’t been mentioned in the thread yet, I don’t think - the pilot looked into diverting to a closer airport. That indicates to me that it was quite a serious burn. I think airlines are very reluctant to do emergency landings as it mucks up their schedule. I can’t imagine the pilot would have even considered it if he didn’t think the situation was serious.

hatrickpatrick

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Something that hasn’t been mentioned in the thread yet, I don’t think - the pilot looked into diverting to a closer airport. That indicates to me that it was quite a serious burn. I think airlines are very reluctant to do emergency landings as it mucks up their schedule. I can’t imagine the pilot would have even considered it if he didn’t think the situation was serious.

The seriousness of the incident shouldn't determine liability though, only by whose actual hand the injury was received and if there were unusual circumstances leading up to it. Again to use the fall analogy, if I fall over on a dancefloor because I'm drunk and unsteady, and there was nothing like a wet floor without a sign designating it as such, it shouldn't matter if I graze my knuckle or break my legs - my f*ck up, my fault, my hospital bill. Nobody else's.

Gimme A Pound

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

This may sound crazy but there's a possibility it did actually burn him. That woman in America who sued McDonalds over the hot coffee is often used an example of ridiculous law suits but the coffee did genuinely burn her very badly.

Maybe this boy was burned pretty badly too, or maybe not. I just wouldn't make a judgement based on that article.

Yeah the McDonalds coffee was entirely too hot - this was established beyond a doubt and temperature regulations were brought in on the back of the case.

The other aspect though was that she held the coffee cup between her knees. Wtf?! With a flexible container, that's a recipe for an accident even if it were a cold drink. This meant btw that much of the burning she experienced was to her vagina. :eek:

So it was a matter of both being at fault. And perhaps she would have been awarded more were it not for her completely stupid and irresponsible way of holding the container.

Going by all of the treatment she had to receive (including skin grafts) the award would just about have covered medical expenses if she didn't have health insurance.

Pauliedragon

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Something that hasn’t been mentioned in the thread yet, I don’t think - the pilot looked into diverting to a closer airport. That indicates to me that it was quite a serious burn. I think airlines are very reluctant to do emergency landings as it mucks up their schedule. I can’t imagine the pilot would have even considered it if he didn’t think the situation was serious.

Fair point maybe he was injured worse than what we know but would giving him 5 grand instead of 70 have increased his rate of recovery? Most people arent against compensation for people who were injured it's the amounts dished out. Aer lingus insurance goes up they pass it onto us via ticket increases we all pay more for our holidays. By the age of 15 I split my hand open on a dodgy window in school 3 days in hospital minor surgery, trapped my finger in a drain 8 stitches. This was early 90's. Im perfectly normal now I didn't need any payout. My folks could probably have claimed against the school and the council. I don't have any ongoing medical issues I didn't need thousands so why is it so different today?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The seriousness of the incident shouldn't determine liability though, only by whose actual hand the injury was received and if there were unusual circumstances leading up to it. Again to use the fall analogy, if I fall over on a dancefloor because I'm drunk and unsteady, and there was nothing like a wet floor without a sign designating it as such, it shouldn't matter if I graze my knuckle or break my legs - my f*ck up, my fault, my hospital bill. Nobody else's.

I’m simply pointing out that people are downplaying how serious the burn was. For a pilot to seriously consider diverting indicates some level of severity.

If it was severe, then that’s something Aer Lingus might need to address. AFAIK, the McDonald’s case was important because it established that the temperature at which beverages were served was far higher than it needed to be. That could be the case here.

I personally find it far more mentally stimulating to look into these cases and the different factors involved rather than just go straight to the trite “people just looking for the compo” conclusion. Maybe this child’s parents are just on the make. But maybe there is some liability on the part of Aer Lingus.

Benny Biscotti

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Something that hasn’t been mentioned in the thread yet, I don’t think - the pilot looked into diverting to a closer airport. That indicates to me that it was quite a serious burn. I think airlines are very reluctant to do emergency landings as it mucks up their schedule. I can’t imagine the pilot would have even considered it if he didn’t think the situation was serious.

But it was the parents choice to continue on to Dublin. If the boy was seriously scalded why didn't they feel the need to divert?


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/boy-who-claimed-hot-chocolate-burn-on-aer-lingus-flight-settles-for-70-000-1.3785973?mode=amp

The pilot offered to find an alternative landing site but, as the aircraft was only an hour away from Dublin, it was decided by the boy’s family to wait until Dublin."

colm_mcm

Benny Biscotti wrote: »

But it was the parents choice to continue on to Dublin. If the boy was seriously scalded why didn't they feel the need to divert?

Solicitors was closing at 5.

seamus

Benny Biscotti wrote: »

But it was the parents choice to continue on to Dublin. If the boy was seriously scalded why didn't they feel the need to divert?

Because the difference between finding a closer landing site and Dublin would have only been in the region of 15-20 minutes.

And they could end up landing in some airfield in the backarse of England, an hour away from the nearest A & E, rather than landing into Dublin and going straight to Temple Street.

For the sake of 20 minutes when the child isn't in any immediate danger, then a hospital at home is preferable to a hospital in a foreign country.

As a parent I would make the exact same choice.

I expect the €70k in this case is more than the child would have gotten in court, but still works out cheaper than the total legal (and potential marketing) costs for Aer Lingus.

The facts of the case are fairly cut and dried. It's well established that someone serving hot drinks has an obligation to ensure that they're not unreasonably hot, and this obligation is even more important when you know you're serving it to a child. The airline doesn't have a duty to ensure the drink can't be spilled, but rather to accept the fact that spillage is a reasonably foreseeable incident and this the temperature of the liquid should not be capable of causing serious burns in that instance.

€70k seems mad, but Aer Lingus offered it, so...

CrankyHaus

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m simply pointing out that people are downplaying how serious the burn was. For a pilot to seriously consider diverting indicates some level of severity.

If it was severe, then that’s something Aer Lingus might need to address. AFAIK, the McDonald’s case was important because it established that the temperature at which beverages were served was far higher than it needed to be. That could be the case here.

I personally find it far more mentally stimulating to look into these cases and the different factors involved rather than just go straight to the trite “people just looking for the compo” conclusion. Maybe this child’s parents are just on the make. But maybe there is some liability on the part of Aer Lingus.

Hot drinks are served hot. If you feel you cannot handle the hazard of burning should you spill one on yourself then order a cold drink. The idea that everyone should be served tepid coffees in perpetuity because a tiny minority cannot take responsibility for their own actions is ridiculous.



The English and Welsh High Court considered this matter and came to a reasonable conclusion.


''I am quite satisfied,'' Justice Richard Field wrote, ''that McDonald's was entitled to assume the consumer would know that the drink was hot, and there are numerous commonplace ways of speeding up cooling, such as stirring and blowing.''




https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/07/weekinreview/word-for-word-hot-water-for-mcdonald-s-british-justice-is-a-different-cup-of-tea.html

Sheep Shagger

Who needs to get a loan for a new car, holiday or house renovation...just have an 'accident'.

These scammers know corporates like Aer Lingus will settle out of court to save further legal bills - arseholes as we are all payng for this through higher insurance.

GreeBo

How was anyone supposed to know there was a potential scald issue.

They should put a warning on the outside that the contents of the HOT chocolate may be hot.

GreeBo

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Hot drinks are served hot. If you feel you cannot handle the hazard of burning should you spill one on yourself then order a cold drink. The idea that everyone should be served tepid coffees in perpetuity because a tiny minority cannot take responsibility for their own actions is ridiculous.



The English and Welsh High Court considered this matter and came to a resonable conclusion.


''I am quite satisfied,'' Justice Richard Field wrote, ''that McDonald's was entitled to assume the consumer would know that the drink was hot, and there are numerous commonplace ways of speeding up cooling, such as stirring and blowing.''




https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/07/weekinreview/word-for-word-hot-water-for-mcdonald-s-british-justice-is-a-different-cup-of-tea.html

The boy should have sued his parents for giving him access to scald himself when he clearly isn't capable of not scalding himself.