Has anyone heard about this?
If you were on the jury, what would you decide?
A mother and her daughter went through the Starbucks drivethru and ordered a coffee and a hot chocolate. The daughter's age was not stated in the article I read, but she was young enough to be in a child-restraining device.
The mother was pulling out and handed over the cup of hot chocolate to her daughter, shortly thereafter, the daughter spilled the hot chocolate on herself, the mother heard her daughter screaming, and when pulling off her pants, the skin was blistering up and coming off her daughter's legs and fingers.
The mother promptly filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Starbucks for negligence.
There is supposedly a law in place where hot beverages are not to be served above a certain temperature...but considering Starbucks makes lattes and hot chocolates with STEAMED milk, there is no way they can comply with that, on the very nature of what they serve.
My vote? I say it's the mother's fault. Even if the hot chocolate had been too hot....do you think the mother took a big gulp of her own coffee before testing it first? Of course she didn't....how many chlidren do you know that would even think to test it first, and even better, was the child even coordinated enough to hold a hot beverage in a moving car in the first place?
I don't ever give my daughter anything heated, food or drink, without testing it first.
READ THE ARTICLE: Child's burns leads to Starbucks lawsuit - AdJab