What is the expectation of putting food in 400F oil for 8 minutes, tossing into a box, and handing to the customer? Do we really need warnings that hot things are hot?
Pressing a piece of fresh deep fried food between a seat belt and a leg for 2+ minutes is going to be problematic.
Maybe don’t give your kids things without checking if it’s cool enough for them to not hurt themselves. We considered that parenting back in the 90s.
There are obviously interesting parallels with the infamous coffee case. Remember the detail about the coffee case wasn’t that the coffee was hot, it’s that the coffee was too hot to be safely served to customers, against McD’s own guidelines, and that the restaurant had been warned before to bring the serving temp down. In that case, the restaurant was intentionally making their coffee hotter than guidelines, presumably to reduce waste of coffee that was too cold to be served if they didn’t sell it in time. Will be curious if the a similar event is at play here.
Notable tidbit from the article:
>While both sides agreed the nugget caused the burns, the family’s lawyers argued the temperature was above 200 degrees (93 Celsius), while the defense said it was no more than 160 degrees (71 Celsius).
This one seems fishy. In the original ‘Hot Coffee’ lawsuit, the plaintiff established a pattern of negligence where that McDonald’s purposely kept the coffee above spec temp and also was aware of other burn incidents and continued to keep the coffee too hot.
This is total BS. Both sides agree the nugget was pressed to the poor girls leg for more than 2 minutes. And it was the mom who handed the hot nuggets to the little girl without checking them, not anyone from McDonalds (if they were that hot the box would be noticeably hot too). While it can be argued that McDonalds is partially responsible, the mother need to admit some responsibility. The idea that she had zero responsibility to protect the child is insane. I can honestly say whenever we gave our children any hot food or drinks we AWLAYS check the temperature because children are more sensitive. I can also say, I’d rather get fries or nuggets that are “too hot” than too cold.
What is scary is the child is autistic and the mom knew the child was at greater risk of these things. Yet she did nothing but wait 2 minutes and the get a video.
Basically part of the jury (it was not unanimous) is saying parents have no responsibility to protect their kids. Instead they need to video bad things so they can post them on TikTok.
Mom buys Happy meals for two kids, including autistic daughter. Pulls away from McD’s and daughter starts screaming. Mom pulls over and finds a nugget burn on kids leg. 2nd degree burns mean it would have eventually blistered.
Mom sues McD’s saying nuggets were too hot. McD’s says they were only cooked to required 160°f to protect from food borne illnesses.
Fun quote from this case:
“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.”
End result will be chicken nuggets will be served a little bit colder, just like their coffee.
Skin/mouth safe is a 110°F or lower product. McDonalds coffee is still served at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C). Food safe for chicken is 165 °F so the issue will be if McDonalds decides to add a delay after deep frying to the increasingly automated process before allowing them to be served.
Nope. I remember the coffee case where McDonald’s convinced the world that an older lady was a grifter when, really, the coffee was hot enough to cause her to need skin grafts on her thighs where it spilled. If somebody’s claiming that McDonald’s overheated something to the point that the item could cause physical harm AND McDonald’s was found liable, I am not under any circumstances believing that the claimant is trying to get one over on a big corporation. I’m believing the old Ronnie McDonnie did that shit.
Having a slight ‘wait, what?’ moment at this bit from the article: “*the nuggets were not meant to be pressed between a seat belt and human flesh for more than two minutes.*”.
I presume the child started eating and dropped the nugget and the two minutes – probably the longest two minutes of either the mother or the child’s life – were while mummy found somewhere to pull over but not following how a dropped nugget – or anything – could get lodged under a seatbelt as tightly as that phrase implies.
azuth89 says
2nd degree burns? Christ that would have to be insanely hot and it was being served in a kid’s meal, they should lose that one.
Lokivstheworld says
If she’s getting nuggets that burn, why am i over here getting room temp nuggets?
Valendorf says
So the food was fresh.
What is the expectation of putting food in 400F oil for 8 minutes, tossing into a box, and handing to the customer? Do we really need warnings that hot things are hot?
Pressing a piece of fresh deep fried food between a seat belt and a leg for 2+ minutes is going to be problematic.
Maybe don’t give your kids things without checking if it’s cool enough for them to not hurt themselves. We considered that parenting back in the 90s.
AssociateJaded3931 says
People get so upset when they buy hot food and it turns out to be … hot.
imakenosensetopeople says
There are obviously interesting parallels with the infamous coffee case. Remember the detail about the coffee case wasn’t that the coffee was hot, it’s that the coffee was too hot to be safely served to customers, against McD’s own guidelines, and that the restaurant had been warned before to bring the serving temp down. In that case, the restaurant was intentionally making their coffee hotter than guidelines, presumably to reduce waste of coffee that was too cold to be served if they didn’t sell it in time. Will be curious if the a similar event is at play here.
Notable tidbit from the article:
>While both sides agreed the nugget caused the burns, the family’s lawyers argued the temperature was above 200 degrees (93 Celsius), while the defense said it was no more than 160 degrees (71 Celsius).
ejpierle says
This one seems fishy. In the original ‘Hot Coffee’ lawsuit, the plaintiff established a pattern of negligence where that McDonald’s purposely kept the coffee above spec temp and also was aware of other burn incidents and continued to keep the coffee too hot.
No_Usual_2251 says
This is total BS. Both sides agree the nugget was pressed to the poor girls leg for more than 2 minutes. And it was the mom who handed the hot nuggets to the little girl without checking them, not anyone from McDonalds (if they were that hot the box would be noticeably hot too). While it can be argued that McDonalds is partially responsible, the mother need to admit some responsibility. The idea that she had zero responsibility to protect the child is insane. I can honestly say whenever we gave our children any hot food or drinks we AWLAYS check the temperature because children are more sensitive. I can also say, I’d rather get fries or nuggets that are “too hot” than too cold.
What is scary is the child is autistic and the mom knew the child was at greater risk of these things. Yet she did nothing but wait 2 minutes and the get a video.
Basically part of the jury (it was not unanimous) is saying parents have no responsibility to protect their kids. Instead they need to video bad things so they can post them on TikTok.
NBAccount says
For those that don’t read articles:
Mom buys Happy meals for two kids, including autistic daughter. Pulls away from McD’s and daughter starts screaming. Mom pulls over and finds a nugget burn on kids leg. 2nd degree burns mean it would have eventually blistered.
Mom sues McD’s saying nuggets were too hot. McD’s says they were only cooked to required 160°f to protect from food borne illnesses.
Fun quote from this case:
“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.”
Brewing_Tea says
Lotta people white-knighting for the poor, defenseless mega-corporation. I think they’ll be fine, guys. You’ll still get your fries
Rosebunse says
I mean, sometimes, McDonald’s overheats their food. It happens a lot.
Riptide360 says
End result will be chicken nuggets will be served a little bit colder, just like their coffee.
Skin/mouth safe is a 110°F or lower product. McDonalds coffee is still served at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C). Food safe for chicken is 165 °F so the issue will be if McDonalds decides to add a delay after deep frying to the increasingly automated process before allowing them to be served.
kingtibius says
Nope. I remember the coffee case where McDonald’s convinced the world that an older lady was a grifter when, really, the coffee was hot enough to cause her to need skin grafts on her thighs where it spilled. If somebody’s claiming that McDonald’s overheated something to the point that the item could cause physical harm AND McDonald’s was found liable, I am not under any circumstances believing that the claimant is trying to get one over on a big corporation. I’m believing the old Ronnie McDonnie did that shit.
Mentalfloss1 says
She would have sued if the food hadn’t been hot enough.
momma3critters says
Ridiculous
Yuzral says
Having a slight ‘wait, what?’ moment at this bit from the article: “*the nuggets were not meant to be pressed between a seat belt and human flesh for more than two minutes.*”.
I presume the child started eating and dropped the nugget and the two minutes – probably the longest two minutes of either the mother or the child’s life – were while mummy found somewhere to pull over but not following how a dropped nugget – or anything – could get lodged under a seatbelt as tightly as that phrase implies.