Parents sue Starbucks over child's burns

**kay88** · 11-19-06, 09:40 PM

Parents sue Starbucks over child's burns
by Diana Penner

A Hancock County couple have filed a lawsuit against Starbucks, accusing a Fishers store of serving scalding hot chocolate that seriously burned their little girl.

Michael and Alexis Brennan filed the suit Tuesday in Marion Superior Court on behalf of their daughter, Rachel.
Rachel's age is not included in the lawsuit, but it says she was in a child restraint seat in the back seat of the family car Nov. 2, 2004, when Alexis Brennan went to the Starbucks at 116th Street and I-69.

Brennan ordered a child's hot chocolate with whipped cream and an adult hot chocolate without whipped cream at the drive-through. According to the lawsuit, Starbucks' policy is to serve child drinks at lower temperature than adult drinks to avoid kids getting burned.

Brennan handed her daughter the child drink, and as she pulled away from the window, it spilled into Rachel's lap.
The child was "screaming in pain," and her mother pulled over, got Rachel out and removed her clothes to find the "skin on Rachel's leg was falling off of her."
She suffered serious burns that required repeated medical attention and could require more medical attention, the lawsuit said. The parents are seeking unspecified damages.

"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," Indianapolis-based Borshoff, Johnson and Matthews, a public relations firm representing Starbucks, said in a written statement.

"The incident happened after the vehicle had pulled away from the drive-through window," the statement continued. "While Starbucks regrets this incident, we believe our store partners prepared and served the drink properly and that we are not responsible for the injuries."

Seriously... and did you notice the date...November 2, 2004...interesting..

Why give your child who is IN A CAR SEAT a cup of hot chocolate in the car anyways???

**Piggybank Cop** · 11-19-06, 10:07 PM

Shades of Micky D's.

That's one way to pay your kids college tuition.

**General Patten** · 11-19-06, 10:12 PM

do these people never learn, or are they just desperate for money?

**Norm357** · 11-19-06, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by 1sgkelly

Shades of Micky D's.

That's one way to pay your kids college tuition.

The Mickey Ds lady was fucked up pretty seriously. One of the Mods at 911jobforums was one of her lawyers. Do a search over there for his post about it.

**kay88** · 11-19-06, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by General Patten

do these people never learn, or are they just desperate for money?

There are so many angles to look at this from. One of the possibilities that not many might think of...what if the other did it on purpose? Just to get money? Parents can be sick and twisted and I guess I would consider that a possibility. In answer to your questions General Patten, I'd say it's a mix of both.

And seriously, if the kid is in a car seat, they are too young to really grasp the concept that the stuff inside the cup might be hot.

I really feel sorry for the little girl that her mother is not the brightest bulb in the pack.

**Piggybank Cop** · 11-19-06, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Norm357

The Mickey Ds lady was fucked up pretty seriously. One of the Mods at 911jobforums was one of her lawyers. Do a search over there for his post about it.

So was the idiot that played with a DUD on the range in Germany after his sergeant took it away from him once and he went back and played with it until it blew his hand off.

Stupid is not an endangered species.

**CountyFourteen** · 11-20-06, 03:21 AM

we all know you can't expect parents to be parents....of course give your little darlin in a car seat something HOT that can spill all over themselves......

**Lazy Fed** · 11-20-06, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by kay88

A Hancock County couple have filed a lawsuit against Starbucks, accusing a Fishers store of serving scalding hot chocolate that seriously burned their little girl.

Need I say anything more???

**Pedro56** · 11-20-06, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by fscf3801

Need I say anything more???

So does that mean it is hot?

**TXCOP** · 11-20-06, 07:54 AM

Well to play devil's advocate here, the lawsuit in the McD's case was due to the coffee being too hot. I mean by industry standards. It was somethng like 30 degrees above the norm. You know as well as I do that they make the coffee once and keep it hot all day. They tried to cut corners and it came back on them.

Personally I'd like to see Starbucks take a hit. On 9/11, some NYFD EMTs entered a Starbucks to get water for victims. They ended up paying because the pierced asshat behind the counter wouldn't give it up.

That's a seriously fucked up corporate policy.

**Pedro56** · 11-20-06, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by TXCOP

Well to play devil's advocate here, the lawsuit in the McD's case was due to the coffee being too hot. I mean by industry standards. It was somethng like 30 degrees above the norm. You know as well as I do that they make the coffee once and keep it hot all day. They tried to cut corners and it came back on them.

Personally I'd like to see Starbucks take a hit. On 9/11, some NYFD EMTs entered a Starbucks to get water for victims. They ended up paying because the pierced asshat behind the counter wouldn't give it up.

That's a seriously fucked up corporate policy.

I would also like to see Starbucks take a hit for the same reasons. Granted if we had an incident like NY in Chicago, the Asshat behind the counter can take my badge number and try to stop myself and the 20 other coppers from taking the water.