Starbucks Gets Burned By Spilled Drink Lawsuit
MayorBob.
Posted to Etcetera on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 03:04:24 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.
Recalling the infamous case of the grandmother and the scalding McDonalds coffee, a spilled cup of liquid bought in a drive through lane has sparked a court case. Only this case involves a fast food franchise which specializes in dispensing hot liquids. I present you the case of "Starbucks and the Spilled Kiddie Hot Chocolate."
Alexis Brennan was on a trip to Indianapolis two years ago when she pulled into a Starbucks to get hot chocolates - one for her and one for her child, Rachel. Rachel, whose age is not disclosed, was in a child restraint seat in Brennan's car. She handed the hot chocolate to Rachel and pulled out of the Starbucks. In doing so, Rachel lost control of her hot chocolate and the contents spilled onto her lap. She began screaming in pain and by the time Brennan stopped and began removing the child's clothes "skin on Rachel's leg was falling off of her." Rachel was quickly taken to the hospital where it was determined she had suffered serious burns which has required serious medical attention and likely will continue to require same in the future. This is where the lawsuit filed this week by Rachel's parents begins.
The lawsuit alleges that Starbucks was negligent because the company policy is to prepare children's hot chocolates at a lower temperature, thereby avoiding any burns which might come about due to a spilled drink. It claims the Starbucks employee put the hotter drink in Rachel's cup with disastrous results. The suit asks for unspecified damages. The company's response thus far has been provided by its PR flacks -- "Starbucks Corporation takes seriously its obligation to provide a safe product to all our customers, and we are truly sympathetic to the Brennan incident that resulted in injuries to this customer's child." The statement went on to point out that the "incident happened after the vehicle had pulled away from the drive-through window" and the company was sure that the drinks were properly prepared and thus the spill wasn't their fault.
Now there are collectives of Starbuck haters on the web where, if you search long enough, you'll find a mention or two of this. But there is also an internet forum which discusses Starbucks information in a more even-handed way, where thoughts and misgivings about such a court case are discussed without a constant reminder that "Starbucks Sux." Although some of the comments have to do with how hot a child's drink should be dispensed, there does seem to be a sentiment that Mrs. Brennan was partially culpable by a). not checking the temperature of the drink herself, and b). allowing her child to drink a hot drink in a moving vehicle. I couldn't find any Starbucks policy manual which speaks to the differing temperatures for children drinks as opposed to adult drinks, this page seems to indicate that hot chocolate isn't served for both adults and children - children get a special cocoa drink. While there are a few comments from the starbucksgossip blog relative to the degree of discipline shown by Starbuck baristas in preparing hot chocolates at the proper temperature, reports elsewhere indicate that not every Starbucks is as rigorous in insuring proper liquid temperatures.
< Kick The Ass Of That Asteroid Before It Kicks Ours
Zimbabwe faces major food shortage; worsening humanitarian crisis >
