Warning: HOT Chicken McNuggets are now a danger!

[Imzadi]

Remember decades ago there was a coffee lawsuit against McDonalds when a woman bought a cup of McDonalds coffee, she spilled it on herself and got badly burned? She won her lawsuit and forever after, coffee cups now have to have a warning that the cup may contain hot liquid.

Now we have a second lawsuit against McDonalds: the too hot chicken McNugget. A woman bought a McNugget happy meal at a drive-in. She handed it back to her 4 year old autistic daughter. In a one in 500 billion chance (I'm estimating that's how many chicken McNuggets have been sold since the invention of chicken McNuggets,) the girl drops the chicken McNugget between her leg and the metal part of the seat belt. The heat of the McNugget against the metal and her leg caused second degree burns to the girl's leg. I guess she wasn't able to unhook the seatbelt.

She was screaming. Her mother pulled over to see what was wrong. She saw the burn on the girl’s leg and took photos on her iPhone, which included audio clips of the child’s screams.

The sound of the girl’s screams were played in court.

Hence the lawsuit. So, when you now receive lukewarm chicken McNuggets and a box with a warning that the contents are hot and to proceed with caution, even though the McNuggets are NOT hot, you now know why.

Fort Lauderdale, Florida court & jury:

"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. [. . .]​

​

"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.​

​

The girl’s parents sued, saying that McDonald’s and the franchise owner failed to adequately train employees, failed to warn customers about the “dangerous” temperature of the food, and for cooking the food to a much higher temperature than necessary.​

​

While both sides agreed the nugget caused the burns, the family’s lawyers argued the temperature was above 200 degrees, while the defense said it was no more than 160 degrees."​

​

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...e-hot-chicken-mcnugget-burn-lawsuit-rcna84145​

​

​

 

[sam_gordon]

Remember decades ago there was a coffee lawsuit against McDonalds when a woman bought a cup of McDonalds coffee, she spilled it on herself and got badly burned? She won her lawsuit and forever after, coffee cups now have to have a warning that the cup may contain hot liquid.

Actually, forever, McDonalds (along with other restaurants) is supposed to serve coffee at a "safe", although still "hot" temperature. Those two words are NOT mutually exclusive. If you haven't already, I suggest looking into the true facts of the coffee case. Let me help you...
https://www.citizen.org/article/legal-myths-the-mcdonalds-hot-coffee-case/
If you don't feel like reading, here's a video...

Now, on to the hot McNugget...

Now we have a second lawsuit against McDonalds: the too hot chicken McNugget. A woman bought a McNugget happy meal at a drive-in. She handed it back to her 4 year old autistic daughter. In a one in 500 billion chance (I'm estimating that's how many chicken McNuggets have been sold since the invention of chicken McNuggets,) the girl drops the chicken McNugget between her leg and the metal part of the seat belt. The heat of the McNugget against the metal and her leg caused second degree burns to the girl's leg. I guess she wasn't able to unhook the seatbelt.

She was screaming. Her mother pulled over to see what was wrong. She saw the burn on the girl’s leg and took photos on her iPhone, which included audio clips of the child’s screams.

The sound of the girl’s screams were played in court.

Hence the lawsuit. So, when you now receive lukewarm chicken McNuggets and a box with a warning that the contents are hot and to proceed with caution, even though the McNuggets are NOT hot, you now know why.

Fort Lauderdale, Florida court & jury:

"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. [. . .]​

​

"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.​

​

The girl’s parents sued, saying that McDonald’s and the franchise owner failed to adequately train employees, failed to warn customers about the “dangerous” temperature of the food, and for cooking the food to a much higher temperature than necessary.​

​

While both sides agreed the nugget caused the burns, the family’s lawyers argued the temperature was above 200 degrees, while the defense said it was no more than 160 degrees."​

​

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...e-hot-chicken-mcnugget-burn-lawsuit-rcna84145​

​

​

As was proven in the coffee case, something can be "hot" AND be "safe". So, my question would be was the nugget SO hot, it was unsafe to touch or eat? Did the franchise intentionally heat food hotter than what is "normal"/"safe"? The article, like most news articles, leaves a lot of facts out. What did the TESTIMONY say? I'm assuming there were experts on how hot the nuggets were supposed to be, how hot they actually were (OK, suspected they were), and then judge from there.

There's not enough information in the article posted to come to a judgement, although I'm sure some will.

 

[Dznypal]

Interesting as McDonald’s food is very seldom even warm let alone hot. Feel sorry for the little girl.

 

[Genie+]

Scott Yount is representing McDonald’s.

“Ms. Holmes purchased 32 chicken McNuggets that day. The evidence will show [that for] 31 of them, there was no problem,” Yount said Tuesday afternoon in court, WPLG reported.

Yount said the child actually dropped six nuggets on her lap.

“She has one burn, and that’s the one location where the McNugget was trapped by the seatbelt for two minutes,” he said. “The Chicken McNuggets are not defective, they are not unreasonably dangerous, they are not dangerously hot, and there is no negligence.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/4000301-parents-claim-daughter-is-disfigured-from-hot-chicken-nugget/

 

[nancipants]

All I know is that I feel sorry for the vilification this mother is going to receive for giving her child 1) fast food, and 2) letting her eat it while driving.

 

[RamblingMad]

FL is turning into a cesspool of villainy.

 

[RamblingMad]

Florida - where woke business goes to die.

Given all the seniors there, I’m sure they have a lot of uneventful wakes.

 

[sam_gordon]

Scott Yount is representing McDonald’s.

“Ms. Holmes purchased 32 chicken McNuggets that day. The evidence will show [that for] 31 of them, there was no problem,” Yount said Tuesday afternoon in court, WPLG reported.

Yount said the child actually dropped six nuggets on her lap.

“She has one burn, and that’s the one location where the McNugget was trapped by the seatbelt for two minutes,” he said. “The Chicken McNuggets are not defective, they are not unreasonably dangerous, they are not dangerously hot, and there is no negligence.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/4000301-parents-claim-daughter-is-disfigured-from-hot-chicken-nugget/

What did you expect the McDonald's lawyer to say?

 

[Genie+]

What did you expect the McDonald's lawyer to say?

To explain their defense. Which he did. I don’t know what you mean.

 

[Magical2017]

From what I remember about the coffee case, the plaintiff was in the right and the coffee was super hot (not a scientific term, but I at first thought the lawsuit was frivolous and later changed my mind). At first glance, this suit also seems frivolous since Mc Ds could not have anticipated that the seatbelt/nugget combo would cause the burn. I would need more information but this will may likely result in a settlement in favor of the family. Either way, poor kiddo! So sorry that happened to a little kid just wanting to eat some nuggets.

 

[Imzadi]

All I know is that I feel sorry for the vilification this mother is going to receive for giving her child 1) fast food, and 2) letting her eat it while driving.

I did wonder if the chicken Mcnugget was instead lodged in the child's throat when the mother accelerated, would the car company have been sued, for not listing a warning on the gas pedal that acceleration may cause choking while eating in the car.

 

[RamblingMad]

I did wonder if the chicken Mcnugget was instead lodged in the child's throat when the mother accelerated, would the car company have been sued, for not listing a warning on the gas pedal that acceleration may cause choking while eating in the car.

Throwing food at your kid while driving sounds like distracted driving. Maybe go to Wendy’s instead.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I have had extremely hot coffee but never nuggets. I set my coffee aside until it’s cooled a bit. I instruct the little ones to do the same with any food or drink. Hey I digress.

 

[Imzadi]

At first glance, this suit also seems frivolous since Mc Ds could not have anticipated that the seatbelt/nugget combo would cause the burn. I would need more information but this will may likely result in a settlement in favor of the family.

But, that's the thing, it has to be a 1 in 500 billion chance of the McNugget getting caught between the seatbelt & leg. And there is a possibility the seat belt buckle was hot BEFORE the nugget got stick there. There have been many times I've had to buckle a super hot seat belt buckle and I don't live in FL. So, most likely the buckle kept COOKING the McNugget.

The jury was split. They did find the franchise at fault for not knowing safe practices in cooking and selling the McNuggets.

So, now, the McNuggets will probably have to sit another minute once they come out of the fryer, before they can be given to the public.

God forbid, people should be required to have some common sense while eating hot foods or giving them to their children.

While I feel for the autistic child. Laws are supposed to be made according to people having a reasonable level of intelligence and common sense. That was the PARENT in this case. According to a previous post, her child dropped 6 McNuggets. I doubt this was a FIRST time that happened. The fact that ONE dropped and got lodged in such an odd place, shouldn't have now become something that impacts the general public with new rules and regulations, as it's likely to never happen again.

I fault the FL jury. If this is the way they vote, WDW is doomed in any upcoming lawsuit.

 

[Imzadi]

I have extremely hot coffee but never nuggets. I set my coffee aside until it’s cooled a bit. I instruct the little ones to do the same with any food or drink. Hey I digress.

You would have been disqualified off the jury.

 

[Sacahara]

I just wanna know the location of this hot serving nuggies McDs, I don't think I've ever had anything more than room temp warm

 

[TLSnell1981]

You would have been disqualified off the jury.

Lucky me.

 

[unrequited23]

I totally thought this was going to be a review of the spicy mcnuggets.

 

[dez1978]

I am really trying to figure out how this happened. Where would there be metal near the childs legs? If the child was in a 5pt harness, the part between the legs is the same material as the straps (like seatbelt material) and the buckle part is a plastic casing. If she was in a booster, the seatbelt buckle is outside of the booster and wouldn't be touching the child at all. And who doesn't check those before handing food to their kids at that age? Either for temp or to make sure it's the right thing and nothing weird is in there, bc McD can be sketchy. I'm not trying to victim blame, just thinking it thru to make it make sense. Like for those to be that hot, they had to have just come out of the fryer in the last 2-3 min. Grease has to be what, like 400 to fry them? So how would they take food right out of a fryer and serve it quickly at say, 160 without putting it in the cooler to cool off? As an adult, don't you just assume fried food is going to be really hot bc it's fried at a high temp? I just have a healthy dose of skepticism these days regarding things like this. I'm skeptical about everything now lol

All I know is that I feel sorry for the vilification this mother is going to receive for giving her child 1) fast food, and 2) letting her eat it while driving.

I don't blame her for either of those things. I've given my kids fast food in the car tons of times. I do question her common sense when handing fresh fried food to a young, autistic child without checking it first.

I feel like adults should expect fresh fried foods to be possibly burn you hot bc you know the temp it is cooked at. You might not expect coffee to be burn you hot because it doesn't have to be brewed quite as hot. Tho, I still think that was a dumb lawsuit too.

 

[RN2003AZ]

I am really trying to figure out how this happened. Where would there be metal near the childs legs? If the child was in a 5pt harness, the part between the legs is the same material as the straps (like seatbelt material) and the buckle part is a plastic casing. If she was in a booster, the seatbelt buckle is outside of the booster and wouldn't be touching the child at all. And who doesn't check those before handing food to their kids at that age? Either for temp or to make sure it's the right thing and nothing weird is in there, bc McD can be sketchy. I'm not trying to victim blame, just thinking it thru to make it make sense. Like for those to be that hot, they had to have just come out of the fryer in the last 2-3 min. Grease has to be what, like 400 to fry them? So how would they take food right out of a fryer and serve it quickly at say, 160 without putting it in the cooler to cool off? As an adult, don't you just assume fried food is going to be really hot bc it's fried at a high temp? I just have a healthy dose of skepticism these days regarding things like this. I'm skeptical about everything now lol

I don't blame her for either of those things. I've given my kids fast food in the car tons of times. I do question her common sense when handing fresh fried food to a young, autistic child without checking it first.

I feel like adults should expect fresh fried foods to be possibly burn you hot bc you know the temp it is cooked at. You might not expect coffee to be burn you hot because it doesn't have to be brewed quite as hot. Tho, I still think that was a dumb lawsuit too.

Child Restraints – Car Seats and Booster Seats

• Florida law requires children age 5 and under to be secured properly in a crash-tested, federally approved child restraint device.
• Children ages 0 through 3 must be in child restraint devices of a separate carrier or a vehicle manufacturer’s integrated child seat.
• Children age 4 through 5 must be in a separate carrier, integrated child seat or booster seat.
• The best child seat is one that fits your child, fits your car and is used properly every time you drive.
• Read the car seat’s instruction manual and the portion of your vehicle’s owner manual when you install a car seat.

According to FL law a child over 5 years old does not require a seat. I’m in no way saying this is the safest thing ( far from it) but my best guess says the child was just buckled in and not in a car seat/booster of any kind.