McDonald's found liable for hot Chicken McNugget that fell from Happy Meal and burned girl
Source: NBC News
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — McDonald’s and a franchise holder are at fault after a hot Chicken McNugget from a Happy Meal fell on a little girl’s leg and caused second-degree burns, a jury in South Florida has found. A second jury will determine how much McDonald’s USA and its franchise owner, Upchurch Foods, will pay the child and her mother, NBC Miami reported.
Thursday’s decision was split, with jurors finding the franchise holder liable for negligence and failure to warn customers about the risk of hot food, and McDonald’s USA liable for failing to provide instructions for safe handling of the food. McDonald’s USA was not found to be negligent, and the jury dismissed the argument that the product was defective.
“This was an unfortunate incident, but we respectfully disagree with the verdict,” McDonald’s USA said in a statement. “Our customers should continue to rely on McDonald’s to follow policies and procedures for serving Chicken McNuggets safely.”
The jury heard two days of testimony and arguments about the 2019 episode that left the 4-year-old girl with a burned upper thigh before finding McDonald’s to blame.
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mcdonalds-found-liable-hot-chicken-mcnugget-burn-lawsuit-rcna84145
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JenniferJuniper
(4,570 posts)Water is wet,
Fast food chicken is hot
Restaurant is liable,
But mother is not?
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)It's a shame that people are ignorant of what drives these suits.
The insurers play us like pawns and then get us to point fingers at each other.
I wish people would wise up about this shit, but we can't help ourselves.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)between insurance companies and nobody is aware of it. Many states don't allow direct actions against insurers so the only way for a plaintiff to recover damages is to sue the insured party (who will be represented by the insurance company's lawyer). And in this case the health insurance company will have to cover the child's medical expenses unless McD's insurance pays up.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)I once found myself on a jury in such a case and I was ready to explode when the jurors all knew that the plaintiff's employer provided really good health insurance, and they kept wondering, "Why is she suing for medical expenses when she has good health insurance?"
I eventually asked the judge if I could tell them they weren't allowed to be told about insurance and he told me "no." So, not only can't they be told, but they can't be told they can't be told.
But there they were, saying "Her health insurance should pay for that" during deliberations and I had to sit there with my thumb up my ass.
JenniferJuniper
(4,570 posts)It doesn't work like that.
Could her health insurance now claim some or all of that verdict? Probably. But they can't force a patient to sue someone else before they bill her bills.
Mosby
(19,491 posts)If the insurance provider wanted to sue someone they don't need to involve the patient or need their permission.
Someone is spreading a lot of bad info in this thread.
Come out and say it, Mosby.
https://www.caoc.org/?pg=isstort
Is there an abundance of “frivolous” lawsuits and “runaway” juries making a mockery of the civil justice system? That’s what some proponents of tort “reform” would have you believe. But many of the examples of head-scratching lawsuits and verdicts that have been circulated are misleading at best, blatant lies at worst.
In some cases, lawsuits are made to look foolish by distorting the underlying facts. In some cases, the suits cited as “frivolous” have been made up. They are nothing short of urban myth. Many of the suits paraded as “frivolous” didn’t have a lawyer involved, were quickly dismissed and never came near a verdict or settlement. We also don’t hear about the “runaway” jury verdicts that were later reduced or struck down on appeal. And tort “reformers,” spreading propaganda in the form of deceptive sound bites and shades of reality, would have you make a decision on the merits of a case based on a few sentences rather than the days, weeks or months of testimony a jury heard before reaching a verdict.
-------
There's a gazillion civil verdicts every day. How did this one make it into the newspapers?
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)as a hedge trimmer, which was circulating widely (and, as it turned out, was made from whole cloth by the insurance industry as part of its tort "reform" initiative). There were a lot of wild stories about alleged product misuse that turned out to be fake, but people do enjoy hearing things that they can get outraged about.
Mosby
(19,491 posts)Piece by fucking piece.
The sole US supplier of a major abortion pill said it would not distribute the drug in 31 states
https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/3/15/23639267/walgreens-abortion-pill-mifepristone-mifeprex-misoprostol
J&J prepares to pay out $8.9 billion to settle talcum powder lawsuits
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jj-talcum-powder-lawsuits-rcna78239
The tobacco companies never paid this kind of money.
3M's bid to shield itself from earplug lawsuits faces skeptical judges
https://www.reuters.com/legal/3ms-bid-shield-itself-earplug-lawsuits-faces-skeptical-judges-2023-04-04/
Lawyers are destroying everything. They have no morals and only care about money.
Scottie Mom
(5,838 posts)Yes, the medicals are paid from the plaintiff's award. The ins co places a lien in the case and IF the lien is NOT paid, the atty stands liable for what the ins co has paid out at the full amount -- medicals, repair to property (think damaged personal property in an auto accident), etc. I will also note that the liens most often are greatly reduced. There are law clerks in most good size PI Plaintiff firms who are solely responsible for "lien reduction." Look at files in a PI Plaintiff law firm -- any file with a lien is marked, noted, listed, etc., in order to avoid the atty paying the lien because verdict or settlement monies were paid out w/o the ins co getting paid FIRST.
So, if the insurance refuses payment and someone (the defendant) caused the injuries -- tell me what most injures parties would would do? There are basically two choices: Bankruptcy to get rid of the bills or sue a defendant who is legally liable for the damages. Of course, you could sue the ins company -- but we all know that they will fight like crazy to avoid payment. I would also note that Medicare and Medi-Cal (California's name for Medicaid) also often have liens in PI Plaintiff files. As with the ins co liens, these can also be reduced -- but if not paid, as with the ins liens, the atty will be liable to the payment of the lien.
I have seen liens reduced to as little of 10% of what the ins co/govt med agency is claiming. Generally the reason is that they will at least get something because if they do not reduce the lien at times the lien will be the greater portion of the money that the plaintiff's recovery and the plaintiff must get at least a certain percentage of the award per Calif law. (See the BTW below.)
Everyone know that health coverage in the U.S. SUCKS! However, until you have seen what I have seen in PI Plaintiff cases, one often does not realize how much power the health industry has to screw over someone who has been injured and has received an award from the responsible party. Basically ins co's IMO = vultures.
BTW: There is some protection for the injured party under CA law re medical liens: If the plaintiff is rep'd by an atty, the amount of the lien cannot exceed 30%, if self represented, 50%. (Not great, but better than no protection, IMO.)
moreland01
(869 posts)Cold coffee and now cold chicken too. Good grief.
JenniferJuniper
(4,570 posts)If you watch the movie Hot Coffee, it's clear that particular restaurant was heating their coffee to an unreasonably high temperature and had been warned to stop.
But chicken nuggets just out of the fryer are hot. Don't give them to your kid until they cool down.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)Not to mention ads over the years often have shown people opening the box and popping them into their mouths.
Part of the very intentional marketing of fast food is that consumers don't need to wait for the food to be cooked - and they don't need to wait to eat it, either.
That said, when our kids were young we temp-tested pretty much everything just out of habit and because it seemed prudent.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)The question is whether food should be served at a temperature that is likely to cause injuries if it is mishandled. Because it is foreseeable that it will be mishandled.
There were probably a lot of facts involved in the finding that the nuggets were served to the customer at an unreasonably high temperature.
But, all that aside, this is a shoot-out between a liability insurer and a health insurer - both of whom refuse to pay for the child's treatment.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)...at least, not if healthcare is the primary goal of such a system.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Liberals aren't popular in some parts.
Mosby
(19,491 posts)Do you know?
forgotmylogin
(7,951 posts)They try to keep enough on hand for orders, but if they get someone ordering a 20 piece, they will usually drop a new batch into the oil, and if that's the last thing they're waiting to bag and get out the window, they might not have time to cool sufficiently or drain all the hot oil as they should.
mwb970
(12,143 posts)Hard to picture them being hot enough to burn, but I guess it happened. It's like being burned by French fries. Has that ever happened?
Igel
(37,516 posts)It's all cooler from there.
You can't heat water at sea-level pressure to 213 F.
You want fresh coffee, it's going to be hot. And you know that if you've made your own coffee instead of always drinking coffee made by the hired help.
Scottie Mom
(5,838 posts)The injuries -- particularly to the plaintiff's genitals -- were horrendous.
There was no excuse to package coffee that hot IMO.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)
AllaN01Bear
(29,384 posts)on that
obamanut2012
(29,340 posts)WTAF. McDonald's has defamed that poor woman for decades.
catrose
(5,362 posts)
SouthernDem4ever
(6,619 posts)other than coffee. Everything else I get is lukewarm or cold.
Farmer-Rick
(12,626 posts)I have deep fried hundreds of chicken nuggets and never got blisters from touching them even just out of the fryer. What will burn you is the hot oil you just took them out of. If you spill hot oils on your skin it will blister.
But the nugget itself just doesn't hold the heat that long. Especially after taking them out, putting them in paper packaging, handing them off to the employee at the window. Then handing them to the customer. They had to have used a microwave to get them that hot. That's what happened with the coffee. It had gone nuclear hot from the microwave.
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)Handing the food to the kids in the back seat is not very smart.
toroyoung
(25 posts)No incident. No one expect a nugget to be so hot that it will burn a child's leg.
infullview
(1,127 posts)what's wrong with people today? The mother was clearly at fault for not checking the food before handing to a child - hold her liable.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)I will tell you what is wrong with people.
People gullibly accept these stories at face value, which are promoted to newspapers by insurance company flacks. The comments in this thread are evidence of that.
The other thing that is wrong with people is that they are beholden to medical insurers who won't cover injuries if they think someone else's liability insurer should pay for it.
So these people are forced to go to court and then get made fun of by people like you and others in this thread.
That's what's wrong with people.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)infullview
(1,127 posts)What ever happened to parental responsibility? Do I think insurance companies are bad? Yes, but do I sue a stove company because my kid touched the burner because I wasn’t watching him/her? No. You always check the temp on food when you have a child.
BigmanPigman
(55,096 posts)the attorney her parents hired?
truthisfreedom
(23,531 posts)They’re cold, but not too cold!
toroyoung
(25 posts)It could be warm. You know, not hot enough to burn a child's leg?
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Folks, this is a contest between who pays for the injuries.
If the girl's medical insurer believes that McDonald's liability insurer should pay the bills, then the mother, the daughter, and McDonald's have to play this game the insurance companies force them to play.
If we had universal coverage, this wouldn't happen.
Please stop falling for insurance company propaganda.
area51
(12,675 posts)If only we had universal coverage like the first-world countries have.
Mosby
(19,491 posts)Restaurants should not be responsible for what happens in a person's car.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Because that's why they had to file suit.
Go get injured someplace and see what your medical insurance makes YOU do if they think someone else is liable.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)It's a pet peeve of mine.
What's worse is that it is actually against trial rules to tell the jury about insurance.
I was on a jury one time, and my fellow jurors kept raising the question of "But if she works at (place), then she should have good health insurance."
The case involved injuries due to a car crash.
I had to bite my tongue so hard, because it would have been unethical for me to tell my fellow jurors that what they are seeing is a play scripted by an auto insurer and a health insurer. The lawyers, the victims and everyone else, are just actors in that play.
This is why the US has so much litigation. This shit doesn't go on in countries that take the approach of "Someone got hurt, let's get them treated."
Mosby
(19,491 posts)People don't go to the Dr or care center and get asked how it happened, insurance Co gets billed and that's the end of it.
I had an experience a couple years ago where I was injured on the job. My insurance company paid for everything, including the surgery. At no time did they ask me how I was injured. I tried to use workman's comp but they sucked, so I gave up on that.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)They can't drop people for pre-existing conditions anymore and this is a special needs child. How much you think they make on that policy?
Karma13612
(4,979 posts)I’m not sure if the injury codes are stripped out before the claims are sent to the insurers. But, I used to code for the ER and injuries were always coded with how it happened, where it happened, etc.
And workmen's comp? Heck yes.
Response to Karma13612 (Reply #50)
Post removed
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)Karma13612
(4,979 posts)Eleven years, retiring in 2019.
In New York State.
When a patient presents to the ER, or urgent care, at some point during their visit, they are asked how the injury occurred.
Your characterization of me “making $hit up” is an absolutely “flag worthy” attack.
Back off.
Mosby
(19,491 posts)Insurance companies don't do what you claim. Doctors don't do what you claim. I don't care about your work history.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)occurred as the result of an accident? What's the basis of your insistence that that information isn't noted? Because it sure as hell is.
Karma13612
(4,979 posts)Coding medical records for ER visits.
We were required to include injury codes for injury visits.
As I said in my original post, I don’t know if the Injury codes are stripped out before the claim is sent to the Insurance co. I was not a biller. That was the patient finance department.
Further, I’m not sure where you have gotten care, but even my PT has asked me how I hurt myself when I went for therapy!
But, accusing me of making stuff up isn’t becoming as a member of DU. You haven’t apologized. I’m done.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)with multiple broken bones and internal bleeding will never be asked how they got hurt. That just doesn't happen! And that time when I showed up at urgent care with a sprained knee swollen to the size of a basketball, they had no questions at all about how it got that way. Maybe they thought it was a bee sting or gout?
Thanks, I needed a good laugh!
And Thanks for coming forward and sharing your insight as well on this mini-debate!
Mosby
(19,491 posts)The people at the hospital are not going to require you to sue the responsible party for payment, the health insurer pays the bills. But carry on, I guess.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)and accused us of making that up, which we did not.
As to the other point, no, the hospital doesn't require a patient to sue; it will be paid by the patient's medical insurer - if the injury is a covered condition, and if the policy is sufficient to cover the bill.But if for some reason the insurance refuses to pay the hospital bill, the hospital will try to get the money from the patient - effectively forcing the patient to sue someone else if their injury was caused by that person's negligence. We don't know whether the insurer in this case either refused to pay up or if there was insufficient coverage to pay the bill. But that sort of circumstance isn't unusual at all.
Mosby
(19,491 posts)So I can only go by my experience. When I had a hernia, no one, not the various doctors, surgeon, or the surgical center asked me how it occurred.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)You weren't asked about how you got a hernia, so that means no doctor ever asks a patient how they got theirs? Or any question about how an injury happened? I was asked how I sprained my knee, but maybe it's only hernias they don't ask about?
Mosby
(19,491 posts)Response to Karma13612 (Reply #50)
Mosby This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(16,204 posts)Not sure if I'm bragging or complaining 
jmowreader
(53,162 posts)The McNugget got lodged between the seat belt and the child’s skin and stayed there for more than two minutes. According to this story…
https://www.local10.com/news/local/2023/05/11/jurors-find-mcdonalds-franchisee-liable-for-broward-girls-chicken-mcnugget-burn/
…the nugget contacted her bare thigh.
Now…I can understand why they were eating in the car: the girl is autistic, McDonald’s is a noisy place, and keeping the kid out of that environment is a good idea.
What I do NOT understand is why (1) the woman didn’t just park the car to feed her kids and (2) why it took her two minutes to get pulled over and fix the problem after the kid started screaming.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Can we blame the real party responsible though?
It's Mom's medical insurer. They want to drop this family like a hot rock because they have a special needs child.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)Especially if the child went nonverbal or partially so. One of ours goes nonverbal when emotions are too big - a trait I'm afraid they got from both parents. Sometimes figuring out what went wrong takes time, so as a parent you learn to look for big, obvious, life-threatening things first. An overly heated chicken nugget wedged next to the seat would be waaaay down my list. Until today, I didn't even know they could be that hot.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)in the popular press. It was all, well, what did you expect if you drove away with a cup of hot coffee? But that's not what happened. The elderly plaintiff was the passenger, the car was not moving, and the coffee spilled on her when she tried to get the lid off to add milk and sugar. She suffered third-degree burns and was in the hospital for a week. Mc Donald's brewed its coffee at between180 and 190 degrees F because it could produce more coffee (and more profits) by making it at a higher temperature, and it knew that this was 20-30 degrees hotter than the coffee served at most other restaurants. It had already received more than 700 complaints or claims about its coffee being too hot. The plaintiff would have settled for her medical expenses but McD's offer was only $800. https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html and https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/ I actually had a phone conversation with the lawyer who handled this case because I was working with an attorney who had a similar one, though not as serious (IIRC it settled).
The media reported that the plaintiff was driving and trying to drink the coffee at the same time, which was just false, and it especially became fodder for the likes of Limbaugh (and probably promoted by an insurer). So be careful about this one - people love to assume personal injury lawsuits are frivolous, especially against big corporations. Mostly they aren't because litigating against the likes of McDonalds is so daunting that most lawyers won't take those cases unless they're very strong.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Mom's medical insurer figured they found themselves a primary.
Because she has a special needs child, they'd like to deny every penny in benefits they pay.
But they can't, so instead they'll force Mom and the child through hoops like this, and then hold them up to public ridicule on top.
It's a sick fucking system and people eat this shit right up.
marybourg
(13,631 posts)was aware of the facts. It was infuriating to constantly hear this woman denigrated by the media and its misogynistic followers. I’m sure you know, but didn’t mention, the horrific nature of her injuries. I’m pretty sure everyone to whom I told the real story blew it off and remembers, to this day, only what the media said.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)
rsdsharp
(11,987 posts)at 180-190°, as you said. They brewed it even hotter — at 195-205°. They always served cream and sugar on the side; the customer had to add their own, requiring them to have to peel off the lid — even drive through customers. This had happened before, and they refused to budge from their normal $700-800 settlement offer.
People think she got millions. She didn’t. She originally asked for $20,000 for her medical expenses. At trial, the jury awarded $200,000 compensatory damages, but found her to be 20% at fault, so the real award was $160,000. The also awarded two days of McDonalds coffee sales — $2.7 million for —punitive damages. The judge reduced that to treble compensatory damages, or $480,000.
So her total award was $640,000, which was settled during the appeal, possibly, even probably, for something less. What would you take for third degree burns, necessitating skin graphs on your abdomen, thighs, buttocks and genitals? At age 79?
sarisataka
(22,648 posts)We hear of the initial awards by juries that sounds like lottery jackpots.
However when they are appealed it is up to judges who nearly always reduce the awards.
rsdsharp
(11,987 posts)It’s called a remittitur. The jury reduced the compensatory damage award by 20% due to Mrs. Liebeck’s fault.
They settled while the case was on appeal. When that happens, the settlement amount is often somewhat less than the original judgment amount.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)obamanut2012
(29,340 posts)And a very active senior citizen no longer was about to be active, but lived teh rest of her life in chronic pain and unable to have a good quality of life. That poor woman.
ShazzieB
(22,555 posts)It makes me furious the way people blow off the seriousness of what happened to that woman and make fun of her, when they don't even know the whole story!
I'm not sure how many people here are actually paying attention and will read your post, but at least you tried.
thucythucy
(9,096 posts)It is both infuriating and disheartening to see how many people, even progressives who are supposed to know better, fall for this kind of misrepresentation, this sort of pro-corporate right wing BS.
I see this a lot where disability and access and the ADA are concerned. Lots of articles on "bogus" suits brought under the ADA that generate the same sort of reflexive outrage, which are grossly misrepresented--at least initially. But of course, as in the coffee case, it's the initial report that gets repeated and becomes common "knowledge."
Like stories that make the case for "tort reform"--and the phrase itself, like "the death tax" is a product of right wing messaging--anti-ADA stories generally turn out to be far less egregious than reported, in fact they generally turn out to be quite justified.
So thank you again for fighting the good fight on this thread.
Polybius
(21,875 posts)Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)and you're swallowing the false narrative. Remember the hot coffee case? See post #15.
Mosby
(19,491 posts)If it was between insurance companies the plaintiff wouldn't be the mom.
Jesus fucking christ.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)so you won't read about it in a short newspaper article. What it means is that if an insurer has to pay a claim, it can often go after another source to recover their payout. If there was health insurance, the health insurer can try to recover its loss from the McDonald's verdict because the loss was caused by McDonald's, but McD has its own insurance, which they will have to pay to the injured plaintiff in accordance with the verdict, but actually it will have to go to the health insurer to the extent it paid the medical bills.
toroyoung
(25 posts)Extreme examples abount in this thread.
AllaN01Bear
(29,384 posts)hope golden arches appeals this nonsense .
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)Mosby
(19,491 posts)Make completely unsupported claims about the tort system.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)who tried the McDonald's coffee case, and I personally saw medical records and photographs of burns suffered by another person scalded by McDonald's coffee. All of the facts of these cases are well-documented and have been heard by juries. If you believed E. Jean Carroll's jury why do you have so much trouble believing the many juries who have returned verdicts in favor of people with physical injuries? One thing I discovered long ago is that the people who complain the most loudly about lawyers and tort law are the ones who get hurt themselves and show up in a lawyer's office, pounding the table and demanding that the asshole who injured them be sued into oblivion. It's bad and wrong until it happens to you.
Mosby
(19,491 posts)That McDonald's was keeping the coffee at a very high temp, well above the danger zone. They were in the wrong.
This is different, because fried foods have to be cooked at super high temps. I would swear that the nug box says "danger--hot" but maybe not.
thucythucy
(9,096 posts)based on their one time experience? Like when someone doesn't get asked by their doctor how they got their hernia, and then assume that therefore medical coding for any other injury never happens?
And then when they get called on it by multiple other posters who obviously know what they're talking about, instead of apologizing for their uninformed assumption they just slink off to another part of the thread?
First an expert on medical procedures, now a trial attorney?
Yeah, that is pretty funny.
hlthe2b
(113,815 posts)and it dripped on her, I just cannot imagine a situation when chicken nuggets would be sufficiently hot and have had sufficient contact with her leg to burn her-- second-degree burns, really? And I've seen/treated my share of burns. Honestly, I can not recall receiving food anywhere that hot--even soup. The coffee story of years past WAS certainly possible, given the brewing/holding temps used, but this one. Sorry for the little girl if she was hurt, but I just find the likelihood of this account being accurate to be low.
On edit, after reading the full article, it seems the little girl was both very young and supposedly autistic such that a dropped nugget held there on her thigh between the seatbelt conceivably might have burned if the nuggets were straight out of the fryer and dripping hot oil. 200F--as the family claimed--does not make sense, but 160F is an appropriate holding temp and can burn especially if the nuggets were greasy. Still, I find some parental responsibility in this... 
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)The child was autistic and the hot nugget wedged in between her seat or seatbelt and her skin and stayed there.
Kids are strapped in to cars these days and can't always move away if something bad is happening to them in the seat.
But it is unfortunate the jury did not have the insight of someone reading a newspaper article in which the facts where provided by... ummm... who?
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)If it wasn't the chicken nuggets, what was she screaming about and how did she get burned? If there was some parental responsibility it would have been addressed at the trial - and the child's cause of action against McD is separate from the mother's. The child's claim would have been for pain and suffering, and any contributory negligence of the mother couldn't be used to reduce the child's claim. It could only reduce the amount of the mother's claim for medical and other expenses.
hlthe2b
(113,815 posts)Her age and lack of parental attention were at least contributing factors, however. Her autism may have increased her sensitivity--especially with the screaming so that should be at least considered. The article does not include medical summary information to validate a second-degree burn complaint. Presumedly there was one.
Ocelot II
(130,398 posts)unless the child would also sue her mother.
hlthe2b
(113,815 posts)sarisataka
(22,648 posts)With the grease still on it? The nuggets do not stay that hot very long.
Lawyers for McDonald’s noted that the food had to be hot to avoid salmonella poisoning, and that the nuggets were not meant to be pressed between a seat belt and human flesh for more than two minutes.
More than two minutes? The child was screaming but the mother took time to record it on her iPhone?
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)A friend of mine has a son who'll go like a banshee for quite a while if something is slightly amiss.
sarisataka
(22,648 posts)Yet despite the screaming in pain, she took the time get it on her phone.
Response to sarisataka (Reply #46)
Mosby This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cheezoholic
(3,706 posts)or yourself for that matter. I know its a bit off the specific topic but it's shit it's not food. Parts is parts and all that. Fast "substitutes" for food are probably the main cause of type 2 diabetes, obesity and the increase of a cornucopia of autoimmune disease's in this country from the insane amounts of salt, sugar and god knows what chemicals are in the crap. We're barely into a 4th decade where consumption of this shit has gone from a few times a month to I would bet 4 or 5 times a week, especially the last 20 years and especially in kids. We're going to see a lot more health issues, including actual genetic and hormonal abnormalities as the generations of kids raised on this poison begin to mature into early adulthood and later in life.
Billionaires own this game 1000%. They're making billions. There's a jingle for makin' it, a jingle for shovelin' it and then a jingle to supposedly cure it.
Sorry for off topic, kinda 
OverBurn
(1,292 posts)I hate cold food.
Mike Nelson
(10,943 posts)... there isn't enough information to render an opinion. I would say this is a bad decision. However, it depends who mishandled the fallen nugget. If it was handed to the girl from a drive-thru window improperly and a nugget fell out, for example, McDonald's is responsible. If the girl opened the box too quickly and a nugget fell on her leg, I don't think that McDonald's should be held responsible. They say their food is HOT. Mothers say, "be careful, that's HOT" all the time. If the girl is challenged, some caregiver should be helping her while out in McDonald's.
Joinfortmill
(21,073 posts)toroyoung
(25 posts)Should McDonalds hand nuggets to a customer 1 second after being withdrawn from the cooker?
Or should McDonalds let the nuggets sit for a little before handing it over?
Why are the nuggets I order never scalding hot? Looks like the nugget in question was.
XorXor
(690 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,674 posts)Who got an owee. And used it as an excuse to stick it to them.
Seriously...even IF a nugget falls on the girls thigh, if something is hot, you automatically brush it off quickly. I just don't see how a second degree burn is caused by a nugget touching the skin for a second. A person no matter how young, does not just sit there and allow something scorching hot to lay on their skin burning it to a second degree level.
Second question I'd have is how much pain and suffering was this worth? The little girl was probably already over it after a couple of days.
Only in Florida