nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Aer Lingus sued after child 'disfigured and scarred' by hot tea

duffman3833

Seen this on independent.ie website today and i didn't think you could sue because tea is too hot. Is it just me or does this seem daft. How else do you make tea, with cold water? She had the cup in cup holder but that doesn't guarantee it will stay still. a plane does move. You can sue for anything these days by sounds of it.

"It is claimed that the 10-year-old girl suffered disfigurement and permanent scarring following the incident on a flight from Dublin to Orlando, Florida last month.

The national flag carrier is being sued by the parents of the girl, who cannot be named. The girl was described in court documents as "a successful amateur competitive surfer".

Her parents are seeking damages in excess of $75,000 (€65,700) and have claimed that the girl experienced pain and suffering, as well as mental anguish and embarrassment as a result of the incident.
She was asked by a flight attendant if she would like anything to drink and asked for hot tea.

The court filing said the flight attendant placed the tea in a cup holder on the girl's tray.

However, a few minutes later the cup of tea "came out of the cup holder and came off the tray" pouring out on the girl.

This left her with "severe burns to her upper thighs and lower torso that required medical attention".

The complaint said that when the aircraft landed there was no available medical treatment for her.

The parents of the girl have alleged that Aer Lingus failed to serve the tea "at a safe temperature" and failed to warn passengers of the "known dangers and the excessive and unreasonable temperature of the hot tea".

They claim that the airline failed "to properly train flight attendants of the dangers of serving excessively hot tea to its passengers".

The parents also said they would have to spend "great sums of money" on medical care and treatment for their daughter in the future."

*Not sure if this is in Correct topic/category*

Find more posts tagged with

aer lingus

sue

hot

tea

Quick Links

Comments

Nesta99

I haven't read through the entire thread so apologies if this or similar was mentioned.

Flight attendants are well trained in the safe serving of any foodstuffs if there is potential risk, a standardised training afaik. Similarly when retrieving something from an overhead locker if at all possible the F/A jumps to help and so minimisng risk of injury.

Without fully reading the thread, the only grounds to sue as I see it is not having a medical team waiting and ready to roll when the plane landed.

MarkAnthony

Changes come because of lawsuits. It's beyond me why the small indent in the tray isn't a hole to rest the cup in; perhaps there is some engineering reason.

Easily foreseeable accident, risk reduction is easy, they should be compensated for medical bills with a very minor award for distress.

slimjimmc

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Changes come because of lawsuits. It's beyond me why the small indent in the tray isn't a hole to rest the cup in; perhaps there is some engineering reason.

Easily foreseeable accident, risk reduction is easy, they should be compensated for medical bills with a very minor award for distress.

I've no idea if this is the reason for the design but an indent eliminates the risk of a child getting their hand stuck in the cupholder hole and not being able to sit down properly and put the tray up for landing.

the_syco

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Changes come because of lawsuits. It's beyond me why the small indent in the tray isn't a hole to rest the cup in; perhaps there is some engineering reason.

We'll end up with warm, not hot water.

hullaballoo

dats_right wrote: »

This sounds like a case where strict liability will apply pursuant to the Montreal Convention. As such the normal rules of negligence have no application as the injury occurred aboard a commercial aircraft.

Will you go way with your actual knowledge of the law fs.

Arts 17, 20 and 21 are most pertinent for those wanting to give this a gloss over: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:22001A0718(01):en:HTML

It does allow for contributory negligence and under its terms, that can result in "exoneration" of the carrier. But only where >113,000SDR is sought.

So, now we can fight over whether a minor has the capacity to be contributorily negligent.

ohnonotgmail

just a thought on this. If they had holiday insurance (and for a trip to the US i assume they did given the cost of medical care there) then the insurance would have covered their medical bills. would the insurance company then seek to recover the money paid from any settlement?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.