Boy gets €70,000 for Hot Chocolate Burn

suicide_circus · 08-02-2019 1:04pm

someone on the average industrial wage would have to work 2 full years to get this amount of money.

Lux23 · 08-02-2019 1:08pm

Do people think companies should be able to put consumers at risk? Because without settlements like this, most businesses whether they be large or small wouldn't be overly worried about the safety of their employees and customers.

professore · 08-02-2019 1:14pm

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.

It doesn't matter how severely she got burned. She's still a fcuking idiot for spilling coffee on herself. IT'S HER OWN FAULT !!!!

If I buy weedkiller and i drink it, should I be able to sue the shop? According to many Irish people I should.

suicide_circus · 08-02-2019 1:19pm

Lux23 wrote: »

Do people think companies should be able to put consumers at risk? Because without settlements like this, most businesses whether they be large or small wouldn't be overly worried about the safety of their employees and customers.

I suppose it's the scale of the pay out that gets to people. And companies will just pass these costs on to the rest of us be it in the form of prices or the huge insurance premiums we all pay

tretorn · 08-02-2019 1:20pm

The McDonalds coffee was served far too hot so anyone injured by it is entitled to be compensated.

Serving a child scalding hot liquid in a very confined space on an airplane is asking for trouble too. Surely the staff member should have put the milk into the hot chocolate before giving it to the child. The child was twelve though so an award of 70,000 euros is a bit high.

The airlines are making a lot of money through selling these drinks and enticing children to get even fatter so tough luck. Why on earth would anyone need to buy hot chocolate on a short flight from Nice to Dublin, his father should have said NO when the child asked.

biko · 08-02-2019 1:20pm

dermo888 wrote: »

Does anyone notice that many of these claims come from certain areas of the country. Mulhuddart. Darndale. Jobstown. Gardiner Street. Sean Mac Dermott Street.

You mean it's because they're all jackeens?

You're probably right

professore · 08-02-2019 1:20pm

Lux23 wrote: »

Do people think companies should be able to put consumers at risk? Because without settlements like this, most businesses whether they be large or small wouldn't be overly worried about the safety of their employees and customers.

I would never go into the restaurant business, or any public facing business for this reason.

At least with businesses, you can have a contract and generally they have money and insurance and are just as afraid of being sued as you are. And you provide a service to them that is of value or vice versa. So unless you really screw them over, they won't sue.

With the general public, there is a certain parasitic element that think they can do no wrong and deserve big payouts for being assholes and they are aided and abetted by corrupt elements in the judiciary and the legal profession.

Those same elements complain about the cost of everything even though it is them driving the costs!

There needs to be some sanity restored where personal responsibility needs to come into play more. A cup of hot chocolate is supposed to be fcuking hot ! The father should be sued or that kid taken into care for ordering that for his son without checking it first as he is clearly an unfit parent.

dermo888 · 08-02-2019 1:22pm

biko wrote: »

You mean it's because they're all jackeens?

You're probably right

There's other parts, Newry, Moyross, but I declined to mention those.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 08-02-2019 1:22pm

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?

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."

Yes, I know. You’re missing my point. The pilot seriously considered diverting, something they are very reluctant to do. That’s my point. So the pilot took it seriously.

professore · 08-02-2019 1:23pm

Ficheall wrote: »

My phone often makes the distinction between "m" and "rn" unclear - took me a minute to figure out what was going on with the "Boy gets 70,000 for Hote Chocolate Bum"...

Subheading "Top Jamaican Gigolo says Irish women can't get enough of that hot chocolate ass"

Franz Von Peppercorn · 08-02-2019 1:25pm

Lux23 wrote: »

Do people think companies should be able to put consumers at risk? Because without settlements like this, most businesses whether they be large or small wouldn't be overly worried about the safety of their employees and customers.

Or... people should be able to handle their drinks and a second degree burn isn’t a big issue.

Eventually the only option would be, for many places, to ban hot drinks. You can’t sell them too low in temperature for legal reasons or too high in case of getting sued.

GreeBo · 08-02-2019 1:28pm

tretorn wrote: »

T
The airlines are making a lot of money through selling these drinks and enticing children to get even fatter so tough luck.

Well at least now we can see your agenda.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 08-02-2019 1:33pm

Anthony Unkempt Vapidity wrote: »

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.

Yeah, I think that was the reason she had to accept some of the blame. That was really stupid of her.

As Bluewolf said earlier though, she didn’t seem to be on the make. She did just seem to want all her medical expenses covered. But I think McDonald’s dug their heels in, likely thinking that this little old lady was no threat with all the money they could throw at the very best legal representation.

So, as daft as the final settlement was, I’m kinda glad that she succeeded. And her burns were truly nasty. And it did make McDonald review things re: the temperature at which hot beverages are served as I think they were way in excess of 100 degrees celsius before the accident.

GreeBo · 08-02-2019 1:36pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I think they were way in excess of 100 degrees celsius before the accident.

That would be a good trick for them to pull off.:cool:

tretorn · 08-02-2019 1:42pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Or... people should be able to handle their drinks and a second degree burn isn’t a big issue.

Eventually the only option would be, for many places, to ban hot drinks. You can’t sell them too low in temperature for legal reasons or too high in case of getting sued.

When you refer to people you cant include a minor.

A child of twelve isnt going to think this drink could be scalding because well he is twelve.

In these circumstances the person serving the drink should have added the milk first. It wasnt like the child was sitting in a restaurant with a full table to rest the drink on and the table providing some coverage should the drink spill. He also couldnt jump up out of the way, he would have been wedged in because he was in a window seat. Also its not clear if the attendant warned him that the cup was full of very hot liquid, I am presuming if he had the childs father would have added the milk for him.

And yes, if this means Airlines wont sell hot sugary drinks to children on short flights then great, we have a huge child obesity crisis and if children want something to drink on short flights then serve them water. No one will be scarred if cold water spills on them.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 08-02-2019 1:55pm

tretorn wrote: »

When you refer to people you cant include a minor.

A child of twelve isnt going to think this drink could be scalding because well he is twelve.

In these circumstances the person serving the drink should have added the milk first. It wasnt like the child was sitting in a restaurant with a full table to rest the drink on and the table providing some coverage should the drink spill. He also couldnt jump up out of the way, he would have been wedged in because he was in a window seat. Also its not clear if the attendant warned him that the cup was full of very hot liquid, I am presuming if he had the childs father would have added the milk for him.

And yes, if this means Airlines wont sell hot sugary drinks to children on short flights then great, we have a huge child obesity crisis and if children want something to drink on short flights then serve them water. No one will be scarred if cold water spills on them.

I’m not sure where sugar came into it. The case was settled so we don’t know if the age of the child was relevant or not. It’s not certain at all that Aer Lingus wouldn’t have settled for an adult.

tretorn · 08-02-2019 1:59pm

The age of the child is always relevant.

Thats why the young woman who fell off the Luas got so much, she contributed to what happened herself but she was treated differently because of her youth. If an eighteen year old had done what she did they may have lost the case.

Hot chocolate is full of sugar, thats why children like it so much.

scamalert · 08-02-2019 2:00pm

tretorn wrote: »

When you refer to people you cant include a minor.

A child of twelve isnt going to think this drink could be scalding because well he is twelve.

In these circumstances the person serving the drink should have added the milk first. It wasnt like the child was sitting in a restaurant with a full table to rest the drink on and the table providing some coverage should the drink spill. He also couldnt jump up out of the way, he would have been wedged in because he was in a window seat. Also its not clear if the attendant warned him that the cup was full of very hot liquid, I am presuming if he had the childs father would have added the milk for him.

And yes, if this means Airlines wont sell hot sugary drinks to children on short flights then great, we have a huge child obesity crisis and if children want something to drink on short flights then serve them water. No one will be scarred if cold water spills on them.

if a 12yo old kid cant handle a cup with liquid in it where was the parents, people that defend this $hit make me sick, this stupid mentality that some burn is worth 70k is ridiculous unless he scarred his balls for life and needed skin grafts, the only thing that should been given was bubble ball to put kid into for rest of his life to live in.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 08-02-2019 2:25pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Second degree burns can happen in a second for beverages of 70c.

So, yes, Aer Lingus might have to review if in an environment that can be unstable (turbulance, aircraft-banking etc.) is 70 degrees too high?

Franz Von Peppercorn · 08-02-2019 2:26pm

tretorn wrote: »

The age of the child is always relevant.

The case was settled so we don’t know.

Hot chocolate is full of sugar, thats why children like it so much.

Utterly irrelevant to this case.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 08-02-2019 2:29pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

So, yes, Aer Lingus might have to review if in an environment that can be unstable (turbulance, aircraft-banking etc.) is 70 degrees too high?

You mean all airlines flying into and out of Ireland and presumably all trains in Ireland.

Tepid tea for the masses.

whisky_galore · 08-02-2019 2:31pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

There's nothing like 70 grand to heal a burn

I assume you rub the 70 grand to the afflicted area.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 08-02-2019 2:35pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Or... people should be able to handle their drinks and a second degree burn isn’t a big issue.

Eventually the only option would be, for many places, to ban hot drinks. You can’t sell them too low in temperature for legal reasons or too high in case of getting sued.

So you keep saying. A school friend got a second-degree burn from spilling scalding soup on her hand. It was nasty. Took weeks to heal, had to be redressed regularly and she had to take antibiotics for a while because the risk of infection was high. It was definitely second-degree, not third because it was a painful burn.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You mean all airlines flying into and out of Ireland and presumably all trains in Ireland.

Tepid tea for the masses.

Sure, if they want to.

GreeBo · 08-02-2019 2:37pm

tretorn wrote: »

In these circumstances the person serving the drink should have added the milk first. It wasnt like the child was sitting in a restaurant with a full table to rest the drink on and the table providing some coverage should the drink spill. He also couldnt jump up out of the way, he would have been wedged in because he was in a window seat.

Umm parents?

Do airlines also have to hold the childs hand while they go up and down the stairs?

What about helping them use the bathroom or ensuring they dont choke while eating on the plane?

Also its not clear if the attendant warned him that the cup was full of very hot liquid, I am presuming if he had the childs father would have added the milk for him.

I can only imagine it was quite clear that when they asked for HOT chocolate and were handed HOT chocolate and they started to add milk to their HOT chocolate that they were, in fact, in receipt of a beverage that was.....HOT.

Gimme A Pound · 08-02-2019 2:43pm

professore wrote: »

It doesn't matter how severely she got burned. She's still a fcuking idiot for spilling coffee on herself. IT'S HER OWN FAULT !!!!

If I buy weedkiller and i drink it, should I be able to sue the shop? According to many Irish people I should.

Well no because there are so many warnings that it's poison. I don't think any "Irish person" would agree with that at all.

Coffee shouldn't be at a scalding temperature though. McDonalds were found to be at fault in this regard. Now I absolutely agree she was an idiot because of what she did to spill the coffee - she was at fault also. But the beverage was so hot that she needed skin grafts. Coffee simply should not be that hot.

She probably would have been awarded more if not for the stupid way she held the cup, causing the spill.

GreeBo · 08-02-2019 2:50pm

Anthony Unkempt Vapidity wrote: »

Well no because there are so many warnings that it's poison. I don't think any "Irish person" would agree with that at all.

Coffee shouldn't be at a scalding temperature though. McDonalds were found to be at fault in this regard. Now I absolutely agree she was an idiot because of what she did to spill the coffee - she was at fault also. But the beverage was so hot that she needed skin grafts. Coffee simply should not be that hot.

She probably would have been awarded more if not for the stupid way she held the cup, causing the spill.

What about tea?

The Bishop Basher · 08-02-2019 2:51pm

tretorn wrote: »

In these circumstances the person serving the drink should have added the milk first.

No the dad should have either added the milk or helped the child add the milk.

The airline staff had hundreds of people to attend to.

The dad just needed to mind his son.

jay0109 · 08-02-2019 2:52pm

tretorn wrote: »

A child of twelve isnt going to think this drink could be scalding because well he is twelve.

In these circumstances the person serving the drink should have added the milk first.

And what if the kid was a vegan. Or a member of some religion that believed milk is sacred!
His parents were sitting beside him. Take some responsibility for your own children - but I suppose an approach like that won't generate fees for the legal industry

Alrigghtythen · 08-02-2019 6:48pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Umm parents?

Do airlines also have to hold the childs hand while they go up and down the stairs?

What about helping them use the bathroom or ensuring they dont choke while eating on the plane?

I can only imagine it was quite clear that when they asked for HOT chocolate and were handed HOT chocolate and they started to add milk to their HOT chocolate that they were, in fact, in receipt of a beverage that was.....HOT.

There's a clue, right there in the name

Cee-Jay-Cee · 08-02-2019 7:19pm

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 the parents didn’t think it was serious enough for the pilot to divert the flight yet sued for €60k. Greed and nothing else explains it.

Boy gets €70,000 for Hot Chocolate Burn

Comments