Boy gets €70,000 for Hot Chocolate Burn

Potential-Monke

Maybe the pilot was going to divert to try and prevent them from suing.

Personal responsibility is the issue here. As the child was 12, that responsibility falls on the parent(s)/guardian(s). I wouldn't hand my 16 year old nephew a hot drink, because he'll most likely spill it. Why this child's parents didn't ensure everything was ok before letting the child drink is a lack of responsibility on the parents behalf and no one else. Also, think back to your last flight. The stewards have to serve 80+ people tea/coffee/whatever. The water has to be boiling as they have to go from one end of the plane to the other, i bet if the child was near the end it wouldn't have been as hot.

But still, none of that excuses the parents. It's their fault and no one else's.

TerrorFirmer

Is your nephew 16 years old or 16 months old? What world do we live in where we can't reasonably expect a young man of 16 to consume a hot drink without spilling it?

Personally while I think 70K is far, far too much and a ridiculous sum, I also recognise that they should not be serving drinks so scaldingly hot that such damage can be inflicted through incidental spills, which can and do happen to people of all ages. Same as with the McDonalds case, should never have been so ridiculously hot.

People are just being wilfully daft with the 'hot' aspect of it. There's a world of difference between something being hot in the generally understood sense of the word, then there's something that's at almost boiling point and capable of inflicting significant damage (again, as per the McDonalds case).

Spill an average cup of tea/coffee/hot chocolate on yourself and you may get a surface burn, even a nasty one, but not a second degree burn. Those are the sort of injuries you get when water from a boiling kettle comes in contact with your skin.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

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.

The difference in time to landing was probably negligible and who knows where you’d end up. At least in a large city, you’d have a decent choice of hospitals and if it’s the city you live in, you know it even better again. And you’re near home which is comforting. Would they have arrived at a hospital any sooner if the plane diverted? Very possibly not. The first aid supplies on board were likely sufficient to keep the burn covered until arrival at hospital.

I personally think a number of things could explain it. Greed is one of the possibilities. But the only possibility? Hardly.

Blaizes

I'm going to go down a completely different route here now but I discussed this before with a friend of mine having heard someone had a heart attack on a plane would there be any sense in employing a doctor or nurse on a plane?I honestly don't know as I have zero medical knowledge but it came up in conversation a few months back.

James Brown

"Your Ma is so fat, in school she sat next to everybody!"

Hot Chocolate BURN

tretorn

It was August so the child may have been wearing shorts and scalding hot water coming into contact with bare skin would be very painful.

A pal spilled soup on her foot recently and it was agony, she has been told she may need skin grafts in the future, its not possible to say for sure yet.

I think a lot of these claims are driven by greedy solicitors but I wouldnt hand a twelve year old a scalding hot beverage so the airline to my mind didnt take due care. I would expect the attendent to draw the parents attention to the temperature of the beverage and have him put the milk in. I have often been warned by table staff that plates are very hot so then I take care and if the child had been told the liquid was scalding hot he might have waited for it to cool down.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

tretorn wrote: »

It was August so the child may have been wearing shorts and scalding hot water coming into contact with bare skin would be very painful.

A pal spilled soup on her foot recently and it was agony, she has been told she may need skin grafts in the future, its not possible to say for sure yet.

I think a lot of these claims are driven by greedy solicitors but I wouldnt hand a twelve year old a scalding hot beverage so the airline to my mind didnt take due care. I would expect the attendent to draw the parents attention to the temperature of the beverage and have him put the milk in. I have often been warned by table staff that plates are very hot so then I take care and if the child had been told the liquid was scalding hot he might have waited for it to cool down.

Spilled soup causes truly nasty burns if hot enough. I think it’s because it doesn’t run off your hand as quickly as a thinner liquid. I’ve described a school friend’s nasty soup burn a few posts back. And that burn was painful so it had to be second-degree, not third-degree. Possibly the high sugar content of hot chocolate as compared with your average tea or coffee might have made a difference too. It would be a stickier solution anyway.

Very good point about hot plates in restaurants.

Gimme A Pound

I despise trumped up compo claims - the messing on the roof of a moving Luas one is truly infuriating. I'm a total "personal responsibility" advocate.

But it does seem like the beverage was served at too high a temperature in this case, like the McDonalds coffee, and that shouldn't be the case. Hot chocolate is never supposed to be scalding.

Not sure about agreeing with the claim and the award though, but yeah, duty of care needed in relation to beverage temperature. The kid did sustain burns in fairness.

GreeBo

Matt Barrett wrote:

"Your Ma is so fat, in school she sat next to everybody!"

Hot Chocolate BURN

Ahem.

GreeBo wrote: »

GreeBo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Spilled soup causes truly nasty burns if hot enough. I think it’s because it doesn’t run off your hand as quickly as a thinner liquid. I’ve described a school friend’s nasty soup burn a few posts back. And that burn was painful so it had to be second-degree, not third-degree. Possibly the high sugar content of hot chocolate as compared with your average tea or coffee might have made a difference too. It would be a stickier solution anyway.

Very good point about hot plates in restaurants.

Any update on the coffee that's served far in excess of 100 celcius?
Its just i have Ripleys Believe It Or Not on the other line...

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

seamus wrote: »

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...

Rude!

What about my compo claim? You cut me deep.

Gimme A Pound

GreeBo wrote: »

Any update on the coffee that's served far in excess of 100 celcius?
Its just i have Ripleys Believe It Or Not on the other line...

Hasn't it been established though that a liquid doesn't have to be at boiling point to cause burns?

joeguevara

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Judicary once again.

Did you read the article? It was settled so nothing to do with judiciary. In all personal injury cases involving a minor a judge has to approve a settlement to protect a child getting shafted. They cannot reject it for being too much but could if they thought it was too little. But don’t let the facts get in the way of having a dig at the judiciary. It was the insurance company and indeed Aer Lingus at fault here and the parents for bringing a ridiculous case. Not the courts itself.

I could be a millionaire for all the sh1t that happened me as a kid and have literally more scars than a Vietnam Vet. But instead of my parents cashing in they beat the sh1t out of me for being such a clumsy fcuk. More of that is needed.

Gimme A Pound

joeguevara wrote: »

But instead of my parents cashing in they beat the sh1t out of me for being such a clumsy fcuk. More of that is needed.

Yeah... no. Beating the sh1t out of children for mere poor co-ordination, or for anything... is not needed.

Not taking out spurious compo claims is sufficient.

road_high

thebaz wrote: »

Why didnt the father , who sued and made the claim, not do this dangerous task of adding milk , nevermind this kind of bull**** is what I hate most about Ireland.
The legal gravy greed train keeps running.

Exactly. Where was the dumb parent? Next they’ll be suing for getting wet in the rain. Absolute horse****e fanned completely by the legal ambulance chasers

joeguevara

Anthony Unkempt Vapidity wrote: »

Yeah... no. Beating the sh1t out of children for mere poor co-ordination, or for anything... is not needed.

Not taking out spurious compo claims is sufficient.

Hardly meant beating the sh1t out of me. Again too literal. But if I did something stupid and hurt myself then yeah I’d get a clip around the ear. I’d never do it again. Same as if I wandered off after a football and nearly got knocked down, instead of them running after the car, they would give me an unmerciful welt across the back of the ar5e for nearly killing myself (bizarre I know) but I grew up a functioning adult and not a litigious freak who think the world owes me a claim. But who am I to thank my parents for giving me a normal childhood. But if ya think a parent who gave their kids a spank and takes a throwayay comment literally then up to you.

GreeBo

Anthony Unkempt Vapidity wrote: »

Hasn't it been established though that a liquid doesn't have to be at boiling point to cause burns?

I don't think anyone denied that?

However claiming that a company is serving water far hotter than the boiling temperature of water really needs to be called out imo.

Gimme A Pound

joeguevara wrote: »

Hardly meant beating the sh1t out of me. Again too literal. But if I did something stupid and hurt myself then yeah I’d get a clip around the ear. I’d never do it again. Same as if I wandered off after a football and nearly got knocked down, instead of them running after the car, they would give me an unmerciful welt across the back of the ar5e for nearly killing myself (bizarre I know) but I grew up a functioning adult and not a litigious freak who think the world owes me a claim. But who am I to thank my parents for giving me a normal childhood. But if ya think a parent who gave their kids a spank and takes a throwayay comment literally then up to you.

Ah now, there was zero reason to believe you weren't being literal.

When you actually meant "If I did something stupidly dangerous as a kid, my parents would give me a smack on the arse to ensure I didn't do it again" why not just say that instead of "they beat the sh1t out of me for being such a clumsy fcuk" (jaysus!) - kids will be clumsy at times, nothing wrong with that. But yeah doing something dangerous, sometimes that message needs to be given.

Those parents who don't do the above though, aren't necessarily out always looking for claims to make either.

wakka12

Do these people who claim for everything not have the slightest shred of self dignity

Ginger83

Bad luck money

McCrack

AllForIt wrote: »

When a judge makes an evaluation of damages does he include legal expenses incurred to bring the case to court? And regardless what would legal fees be for such a case, roughly.

For a High Court PI claim assessment infant ruling the plaintiffs solicitor in this case would get an instruction fee of about 20k plus VAT

The case would likely take 2 or so years to see through

GreeBo

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-alleged-she-was-accused-of-stealing-1-shopping-bag-from-dunnes-stores-settles-defamation-case-37792897.html

You can get 75k by stealing €1 item, save yourself a hospital trip.
I won't even mention where the "victim" is from in Dublin...

CPTM

I just got off an aer lingus flight here to Spain. A lady spilled tea all over herself. There was hardly any turbulence at all. I mean seriously, how many people are spilling hot drinks all over themselves these days? Paramedics and everything called. That's another 70k down the drain I guess.

OldMrBrennan83

CPTM wrote: »

I just got off an aer lingus flight here to Spain. A lady spilled tea all over herself. There was hardly any turbulence at all. I mean seriously, how many people are spilling hot drinks all over themselves these days? Paramedics and everything called. That's another 70k down the drain I guess.

She must have read about this case before the flight.

Whirl_wolle

I stopped off in a coffee shop before to get a tea. I ordered a pot of tea. It was a nice day and I took a seat outside in the shade. The waitress came and served my tea. I poured tea into the mug and milk to my liking. I don't like very hot tea and I like a lot of milk because of this. I took a mouthful of tea and it was bad. It was far to hot and couldn't swallow it at all. All I could do was open my mouth and let it all pour out. I decided to wait to let the rest of the tea cool down. 20 minutes later and it was still too hot to drink. My mouth was genuinely very sore for not only the remainder of the day but for a good week after that and I had to eat soft foods too. If I had it in me, I think I would have gone down the compo route.

imme

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, in the first case you'd be dead.

Aside from that fact, no, it is the purchasers responsibility to not drink weedkiller.

If the case did go ahead someone would have to quote the movie line:

YOU MUST BE STUPID
STUPID
STUPID

Potential-Monke

I'm calling BS on a cup of tea still being too hot after 20 minutes of sitting outside. Was it in a coffee cup with the lid on? Even then, 20 minutes...

Although, kudos for not claiming, it is up to you at the end of the day to ensure you can swallow before taking a mouthful*.

*Giggitty

imme

Whirl_wolle wrote: »

I stopped off in a coffee shop before to get a tea. I ordered a pot of tea. It was a nice day and I took a seat outside in the shade. The waitress came and served my tea. I poured tea into the mug and milk to my liking. I don't like very hot tea and I like a lot of milk because of this. I took a mouthful of tea and it was bad. It was far to hot and couldn't swallow it at all. All I could do was open my mouth and let it all pour out. I decided to wait to let the rest of the tea cool down. 20 minutes later and it was still too hot to drink. My mouth was genuinely very sore for not only the remainder of the day but for a good week after that and I had to eat soft foods too. If I had it in me, I think I would have gone down the compo route.

You poured in milk to your liking you say.

Therefore it was your own fault if the tea was too hot for your liking.

How do you not understand that?????

Whirl_wolle

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I'm calling BS on a cup of tea still being too hot after 20 minutes of sitting outside. Was it in a coffee cup with the lid on? Even then, 20 minutes...

Although, kudos for not claiming, it is up to you at the end of the day to ensure you can swallow before taking a mouthful*.

*Giggitty

The tea in the mug was on the cool side but it needed a top up from the pot. It was the tea in the pot that was still too hot.

iamwhoiam

Whirl_wolle wrote: »

I stopped off in a coffee shop before to get a tea. I ordered a pot of tea. It was a nice day and I took a seat outside in the shade. The waitress came and served my tea. I poured tea into the mug and milk to my liking. I don't like very hot tea and I like a lot of milk because of this. I took a mouthful of tea and it was bad. It was far to hot and couldn't swallow it at all. All I could do was open my mouth and let it all pour out. I decided to wait to let the rest of the tea cool down. 20 minutes later and it was still too hot to drink. My mouth was genuinely very sore for not only the remainder of the day but for a good week after that and I had to eat soft foods too. If I had it in me, I think I would have gone down the compo route.

You are an adult I presume ? Adults are well equipped to test food and drink and assess how hot it is . Its your business to look after yourself and only drink what is the right temperature .