Suit: Starbucks 'Extra Hot' Tea Scalded Woman, Killed Dog

Johnboy60

Looking For Interesting News.
Dec 28, 2003
15,455
3,130
Tennessee
✟306,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
A woman is suing a Denver Starbucks over a spilled cup of hot tea she claims caused second-degree burns that disfigured her and killed her dog, the Denver Post reports. A federal lawsuit filed by Deanna Salas-Solano, 58, contends an employee at the drive-thru window didn't secure the lid to the "unreasonably hot" 20-ounce tea she ordered in September 2015.

Suit: Starbucks 'Extra Hot' Tea Scalded Woman, Killed Dog
 
  • Informative
Reactions: brinny

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
First McDonalds and now Starbucks. They'll come a time when coffee makers are going to make lids optional and just place the cup on the counter!

I don't know about this case, but in the (in)famous McDonalds coffee case the news we heard was basically McDonalds spinning the story, they were in the wrong, but the story we got was that it was some frivolous lawsuit--it wasn't. The woman was Stella Liebeck, and she was 79, the coffee was 190 degrees F, nearly boiling. Liebeck received 3rd degree burns on her genitals and inner thighs requiring 8 days in emergency care, skin grafts, and two years of continued medical treatment. Liebeck didn't sue McDonalds because of a little hot coffee spill, but because McDonalds had had a history of this as a problem, numerous people had been injured and McDonalds had been told--repeatedly--that their coffee was being sold entirely way too hot. Liebeck sued, chiefly, for McDonalds to accept some responsibility and cover medical expenses for the injuries she received. McDonalds, on the other hand, used their lawyers to spin the story in the media like they were the good guys and Liebeck was a nasty, greedy woman. And we, the public, ate it up and it went down as legend as an example of American frivolous lawsuits. It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit, it was an important message to send a major corporation which had a string of coffee-related injuries and had been told repeatedly of the dangers which they ignored.

When a company sells a product that isn't safe, they should be held accountable if or when it results in bodily injury.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

trunks2k

Contributor
Jan 26, 2004
11,369
3,520
41
✟270,241.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The McDonald's thing was a joke. The coffee was exactly the temperature recommended by the machine supplier.
Coffee is hot. Don't pour it on yourself and you won't get hurt.
If it was served at the temperature that was recommended by the machine supplier, then McDonalds was not serving it in an appropriately safe container.

McDonalds had a history of customers getting severe burns. So they were either serving the coffee too hot, and/or not ensuring the container is appropriately spill-proof.

It should also be noted that the court did assign some of the blame to the woman in question. People do have some responsibility to take due care, but when you are serving a product that can cause severe burns, you have a responsibility to ensure that it's not going to injure your customers under normal usage.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

trunks2k

Contributor
Jan 26, 2004
11,369
3,520
41
✟270,241.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How can you make a tea so hot that it kills a dog?
That's my question. I can buy that they gave her extremely hot coffee in an unsuitable container resulting in second degree burns, but I find it hard to believe that the dog ended up dying from it.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,028
23,941
Baltimore
✟551,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
If it was served at the temperature that was recommended by the machine supplier, then McDonalds was not serving it in an appropriately safe container.

McDonalds had a history of customers getting severe burns. So they were either serving the coffee too hot, and/or not ensuring the container is appropriately spill-proof.

It should also be noted that the court did assign some of the blame to the woman in question. People do have some responsibility to take due care, but when you are serving a product that can cause severe burns, you have a responsibility to ensure that it's not going to injure your customers under normal usage.

Additionally, the woman had only originally sought medical expenses, and then during the trial, maybe some amount on top of that, but nothing too exorbitant. The big payout came from the jury taking it upon themselves to levy punitive damages after seeing McD's history of ignoring the problem of burns.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The McDonald's thing was a joke.

Yes, elderly women receiving 3rd degree burns and needing intensive medical care because a company was being incredibly irresponsible is absolutely hilarious.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aryeh Jay
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AvilaSurfer

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 14, 2015
9,736
4,784
NO
✟928,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, elderly women receiving 3rd degree burns and needing intensive medical care because a company was being incredibly irresponsible is absolutely hilarious.

-CryptoLutheran
The lawsuit was a joke. If you're too stupid to handle a hot cup of coffee, maybe you should stick to safer drinks. Like soda, or water.
 
Upvote 0

AvilaSurfer

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 14, 2015
9,736
4,784
NO
✟928,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If it was served at the temperature that was recommended by the machine supplier, then McDonalds was not serving it in an appropriately safe container.

McDonalds had a history of customers getting severe burns. So they were either serving the coffee too hot, and/or not ensuring the container is appropriately spill-proof.

It should also be noted that the court did assign some of the blame to the woman in question. People do have some responsibility to take due care, but when you are serving a product that can cause severe burns, you have a responsibility to ensure that it's not going to injure your customers under normal usage.
Well let's be honest, there's a portion of the public that really is too stupid to live. Hot drinks hurt if you pour them on yourself.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The lawsuit was a joke. If you're too stupid to handle a hot cup of coffee, maybe you should stick to safer drinks. Like soda, or water.

I struggled to come up with some kind of response. Also considered not responding at all. Sometimes peole say things that make me mad. Sometimes people say things that I think deserve to have a snarky response to call them out for it. And sometimes, just sometimes, people say things that are just deeply depressing and show just how heartless and awful we can be as a species toward one another.

You spoke these words, and you're the one who has to live with that. May the Lord be merciful.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A woman is suing a Denver Starbucks over a spilled cup of hot tea she claims caused second-degree burns that disfigured her and killed her dog, the Denver Post reports. A federal lawsuit filed by Deanna Salas-Solano, 58, contends an employee at the drive-thru window didn't secure the lid to the "unreasonably hot" 20-ounce tea she ordered in September 2015.

Suit: Starbucks 'Extra Hot' Tea Scalded Woman, Killed Dog
The article you posted does not agree with what the station, KDVR, that saw the video said.
The video shows that the employee did put the cup in the protective hot cup holder, so it is not totally inconclusive.
Starbucks faces ‘grande’ lawsuit over hot tea that killed dog, burned owner
That's my question. I can buy that they gave her extremely hot coffee in an unsuitable container resulting in second degree burns, but I find it hard to believe that the dog ended up dying from it.
Yes, something is not right when it comes to the dog. Did she decide to have the dog put down rather than pay for the treatment that it needed? Did the coffee go down it's throat causing internal burns, maybe.
As a driver and cyclist who has to share the roads, I do NOT want a company introducing scalding hot liquids into the cabin of other drivers cars.
That is a very good point.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mala

fluffy lion
Dec 5, 2002
3,379
2,520
✟260,424.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Well let's be honest, there's a portion of the public that really is too stupid to live. Hot drinks hurt if you pour them on yourself.

like people who fail to grasp the actual context of a case instead of the easily dismissed, with a trivial amount of research, hyperbole surrounding it?
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well let's be honest, there's a portion of the public that really is too stupid to live. Hot drinks hurt if you pour them on yourself.

Sounds like you fell for the "McDonald's spin" on the coffee story.

The "I'm going to sue McDonald's because I'm fat" one was frivolous...the coffee lawsuit was legit and warranted. I'd take some time to familiarize yourself with the actual details of that story before suggesting that the old lady impacted by it was "too stupid to live".

FYI, you might want to check to make sure "there's a portion of the public that really is too stupid to live" isn't trademarked or copyrighted before you use it... the GOP may have already reserved that as a slogan for their new healthcare plan.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Goonie
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
McDonald's spin. LOL. Yeah. Or the coffee was brewed exactly as the supplier suggested and some old lady put the cup between her legs. Accidents happen. Move on. Blah blah.

You can try to laugh it off all you'd like, just be aware that the evidence and facts are in contrast to your own opinion on the matter.

  • McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
  • Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds.
  • The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.
  • McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.
  • At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, “there was a person behind every number and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.”
  • McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
  • McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then-required temperature.
  • McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.
  • Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial.
 
Upvote 0