The story suggests that these parents preferred that a restaurant protect their child from hot food, but what would they have wanted the restaurant to do? Considering that they themselves did nothing that protected their child, is this merely a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Much like the Mac commercials.

I am sure this has been said before but....Parenting FAIL for feeding your 23 month old Dunkin Doughnuts!!!! No lawsuit for you!

#2. IMO, after the first 12 months, your child is "1 year old" until they are "2 years old" and so on and so forth. I find it pretentious as all hell when people insist on referring to their child's age in months after the first year. I could care less as long as it doesn't poop on my floor.

now hear me out on this cause it's gonna sound crazy... but how about you feed your toddler stuff that doesn't come from a deep fryer? i mean it's just an idea but good luck getting money from dd considering i have yet to have a batch of even warm tater tots...

@teke367: As a parent of a 2 year old who loves fried potatoes as much as his daddy, I can attest that hash browns, fries, any and all cooked potato product can appear room temp and be scalding on the inside.

Potato is especcially moist and dense, holding heat exceptionally well. You always, ALWAYS break up any hot or recently cooked item for a todler and inspect the exterior and interior temp and make sure it's nothing more than slightly warm when it's time to serve baby.

Sorry if the judge has kids, DD wins this one.

@zentex: Yes. Enough said.

This is just ridiculous. These people should be thrown in jail for a few weeks to teach them a lesson... Including that lawyer!!!

@shepd: It had soaked through her pants and underwear and through to the seat as well.

In the other hand, tater tots and hash browns tend to be less dense as it is made from formed chopped potatoes, plus smaller/thinner than mushrooms so they cook faster. I have never been burned by a formed chopped potato product. And I have never had one fall out of my mouth and onto my neck.

Unless the toddler has third degree burns on his lips and gums to go with the second degree burns on his neck, I call shenanigans. Assuming the toddler made a noise from biting into searing hot tater tot, how long was the hot internal part of the tater tot pressed against the skin to cause the burn? It could not have been caused by the exterior because the parents claimed that it was lukewarm. If the burn on the neck is larger or differently shaped than the rocket-hot interior of a tater tot, then I call shenanigans.

The part of me that thinks that humanity is naturally evil thinks that the parents accidentally or intentionally burned the neck of their toddler and went out looking for some hot food to "fall" onto the burn and sue the restaurant, rather than take the child to the hospital and risk being charged with child abuse.

@mechteach: To be fair, the article is referring to the lawyer bringing up the McDonalds suit, Consumerist isn't necesarily making that connection.

Probably not a great lawyer though. This case seems to be a lot like the McDonalds case. Sure, you shouldn't be surprised that hot things are hot, but the question is would a reasonable person expect those kinds a burns? In the McDonalds case, no I don't think reasonable people would expect that from coffee, in this case, who knows? I've never had hot potato insides fall on my skin, and I'm not familar with how much more sensitive baby skin is than adult skin.

You can't blam Dunkin Donuts for the food falling out of the baby's mouth. If its common knowlege not to feed infants food that temperature (assuming the temp was normal), then the parents probably lose. If it turns out that the heat needed to blist a baby is much hotter than fast food generally is, then I suppose the parents win.

@naturefreak85:

There seems to be a lot of confusion on how microwaves work. They neither heat from the "outside out" or from the "inside in" or any variation therein. Microwaves work specifically by hitting water molecules at a frequency that they "excite" the molecules. This makes them vibrate which is what we see as heat.

Frozen water is obviously harder to "excite" the already room temperature water, thus the frozen burrito problem.

However, in the case of the has brown, most of the outer water will have been replaced by oil (which will also heat, but not nearly as quickly), while the inner water will have already been long thawed. Nuking a hash round in a microwave *will* cause the inside to heat up dramatically faster than the outside. Test it yourself.

Even with a regular potato, the outside can be warm to the touch while the inside is lava-hot. This is why when you nuke potatoes for too long, they actually BURN from the inside out. (Unfortunately, have tested this often.)

Still, I'm with those that say this is 100% the mom's fault. Stupid broad handed a kid a hot container of hash browns. I don't think for a second she tested each one finding them only lukewarm.

@Trai_Dep: Thats quite the leftest comment there. Never let facts get in the way of a good arguement.
Look You said it was FOX , and FOX was not even a news network back then.

I know its sheek for those on the left to say its FOX that made'em do it. But Not this time.....

@FLConsumer: I don't think they make hash browns THAT hot.

I'm saying that I don't know WHY it was there for 15 seconds. Hold your breath for 15 seconds and tell me it isn't a long time. Use a watch to time yourself...

If I had a choice of severe burns (and was already in pain) I can assure you, I can lose my pants and underwear in well under 5 seconds, maybe 2 or 3.

But, I don't know the exact circumstances this lady was in, but there would HAVE to some sort of extenuating circumstances for it to take 15 seconds to get your pants down, if not off. As I'm not a witness, I can't say if she was taking reasonable precautions or not, so I'm not going to judge on that.

BUT I am going to say that 15 seconds is a long time, and with that length of time, you can't serve safe coffee that people want to drink (well, unless it's "iced" coffee).

@zentex: best description evah!

Your logic is impeccable.

@shepd: Are you saying the lady "let the coffee scald her lap for about 15 seconds?" 15 seconds is NOT a long period of time.

@Sockatume: DD hashbrowns are really just tater tots.

not to be confused with Tater Salad's son.

Yes, and sadly, they are among my teen son's staple breakfast items. 8-O

@katstermonster: It's not the worst thing in the world to let the kid eat this kid of crap once in a while, but you should break them up for him and also you really shouldn't have the kid eating solid stuff unless you are sitting across from him. would they be suing if he choked on it? probably, but they wouldn't get anything out of it.

@zentex: As the mother of two small children, I blame the parents for giving this crap to their child in the first place. a 15mmonth old should be eating applesauce and cheerios for breakfast, not fried foods!

set both parents on fire.

@TinaBringMeTheAx: at almost two, the kid eats what you eat.

But also you would want to break the food up a bit anyway.

so...

Never underestimate a toddler, never assume they can't get into something. That 1 second you took to look to your left just now? The toddler is 100 feet away, on fire, and everything else is on fire, and now there is ninja's, and they're on fire too.

I've had Dunkin's hash browns on occasion, and like any other fried potato, it does tend to be much hotter on the inside than the outside. It seems like the mother in question probably handed the child a whole one without thinking, which would make it her fault, not DD's. By the way, I do give them to my 13-month old. I just break them into pieces so I can be sure when they're cool and safe enough for her to eat.

That is parenting fail from the second that kid came into the world. This ridiculous lawsuit is only yet another step. That poor child.

Death penalty to all who bring frivolous lawsuits!!

That'd nip this litigious trend in the bud.

Seriously. You're bad parents feeding crap to your child without cutting it up first. Suck it assholes.

@Trai_Dep: Gotta love the "Blame fox viewers" argument some people bring out.

Especially when it has nothing to do with the discussion.

FYI
Fox News Began 1996
McDonalsd Hot Coffee Case 1994

And this exactly why we need tort reform. Perhaps follow England's lead. You suit and you lose you pay all court costs plus legal fees. That should make most people stop and think. Right now people get a free lottery ticket hoping to hit it big with little personal financial exposure.

You're allowed to have your own opinion, and it is allowed to differ. Just consider presenting it in a non-sullen manner :D

Frivolous lawsuit very much?

Why doesn't nObama get to work on curbing THIS kind of wasteful expenditure? That would actually be USEFUL and would serve to cut costs in medicine SO much more than what he has planned (which is to cut MD pay by 20% for medicaire; AGAIN)

"I need about three fiddy"
"GolDAMN you Loch Ness monster, go WORK for your money like I do!"

Home coffee does not brew fine at 140°F. I know this because I can brew coffee at ~200°F and at ~140°F, ceteris paribus. One of these temperatures results in a brew that's high in solids and delicious, while the other tastes like crap. I'm sorry you have low standards for coffee. Please don't impose them on me.

McDonalds now serves it at 150°F.

What's your basis for this statement? I heard that the particular McDonald's in question lowered their temperature in the aftermath of the Liebeck case (based on a a spot-check), but last time I ordered coffee at a local McDonald's (a month or two ago), it most certainly was not 150°F. As near as I can tell, it's still held at 185±5°F. Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts and others are similarly hot because, well, that's the temperature coffee everyone except nanny-state-advocates-who-hate-good-coffee agree it should be held at.

Brew temp ≠ Serving temperature

No, but holding temperature is directly related by the amount that the coffee cools down upon being poured into a cup. Some like to drink their coffee at 175°F. Others like it at 165°F. Still others, apparently, consider 140°F acceptable. A burn-victim unit throws caution to the wind and says it shall be 130°F. My dad stores the leftovers in the refrigerator and microwaves them. Some like to drink their coffee once they get to work.

Obviously, we cannot satisfy all people. But that's just one miracle of McDonald's 185±5°F coffee: as long as you don't spill it on yourself, you, the consumer, get to choose your favorite drinking temperature and location. If you're concerned about third-degree burns (as you should be), you may be advised to not remove the lid while holding the coffee directly above or in your crotch. Put it in a cup holder or, since you're hopefully not driving, get out of the car, where you will additionally protect your interior from unsightly coffee-spill stains.

I disagree entirely with the suggestion that McDonald's or any other vendor should lower the temperature of their coffee on account of a 1:24 million incident rate. At present, coffee vendors, manufacturers, trade groups, and coffee snobs all agree: lowering the temperature is just wrong. If their coffee was too hot, they wouldn't be selling a billion cups a year.

Consider reading the treatments at Overlawyered and especially the findings in the similar case of McMahons v. Bunn-o-Matic Corp., et al.:

None of this would matter if it were obvious that consumers derive no benefits from coffee served hotter than 140 degrees F; then the principle of res ipsa loquitur could do the rest of the work for the McMahons. The ANSI minimum of 170 degrees F prevents us from treating as obvious the absence of benefits from temperatures above 140 degrees. What is more, even a little investigation (albeit unassisted by the parties) shows that there may be good reasons for selecting a temperature over 170 degrees F, as several other courts have recognized. ... Without evidence that a holding temperature of 180 degrees F is of little worth to consumers, plaintiffs cannot show that the choice of a high temperature makes coffee defective.

And yes, while I'm nominally liberal or "better than this", ain't nobody going to mess with my coffee.

So, one reason a suit can be frivolous is that there is no legal basis for a suit because a plaintiff has not specified a cause of action within their complaint for which the court recognizes a remedy.

The fact that food is supposed to be hot when your order it does not in any way conclusively determine that there is no legal basis for a claim. So, did you read the complaint filed by the plaintiff against McDonalds? Did you determine that it was lacking a cause of action for which there is an applicable remedy, and did a judge agree with you? My guess is that you did not, and thus cannot determine that either of these cases are frivolous.

Microwaves, can also, depending on their geometry and wave emitter, have dead spots, which cause food to heat unevenly.

For the mister wizard fans out there, You can plot the field within your microwave by placing, for instance, papadums on the bottom of your microwave, and then turning it on. Let it cook until some portion of it has fully bubbled. The papadum will bubble and expand into a 3-D plot of the microwave field intensity. The result of mine looked like a bunt-pan, consistent with a torroidal field with "bands" of intensity and valleys where it was slightly weaker. interestingly, the papadum was entirely raw in the middle, indicating almost no field strength there = no heating.

"Oh gee, really? You mean if I stick my hand in the lawn mower blades while it's running it'll hurt?"

"Oh fuck off. Hot food is hot, dipshits"

Maybe the parents should've cut up the hash browns they fed to their kid, like a responsible care giver?

Some will argue that McDonalds should not have even been responsible for paying for the medical bills. I'm always amazed at how often this case receives attention. There is a plethora of slip and fall cases which played out more like lotteries yet Liebeck received truly horrible injuries and seems to receive more criticism than most.

Granted, the average person seems to think Liebeck was driving the car 90 mph down the highway while trying to add creamer to her coffee while talking on a cell phone and applying makeup (a bit of hyperbole here).

Stella originally only wanted $24k for medical expenses, but they said no... which is why she sued. In the end, she walked away with an estimated $85k after fees. In fact, she was on a recent episode of Repo men having her car (3ish year old Ford Taurus/500) towed.

My fun tidbit I like to add to these things is that even at that "safer" temperature, time to third degree burns is reduced from 1 or 2 milliseconds to 20 or 30 milliseconds, perhaps 500 milliseconds at 155 F.

Considering human reaction time is 100 milliseconds, I humbly suggest that there is no "safe" temperature for coffee that leaves it palatable.

Furthermore, the documents in the case shows coffee lady let the coffee scald her lap for about 15 seconds (Whether this is due to stupidity or inability is lost to time). With 15 seconds duration, we're talking something like 120 F serving temperature for safety. That's tepid!

Maybe that's just because I was deprived and only got fast food once or twice a year. Oh, the horrors! Heh.

@MostlyHarmless:

I STILL LOVE YOU, DUNKIN DONUTS!!

....call me??

@MostlyHarmless: Verucalise says.... "Can I haz hash browns peeez?"

And on a more personal note, I have four children, ages 7-1/2 down to a 6 week old. I have never just my young ones food without checking it first, and *gasp* I have fed my 3 (now 4) year old these hash browns more than once. They ARE hot. I break them in half, put them back into the container and let them cool before my daughter can shovel them in.

This isn't even CLOSELY comparable to the McD's suit. coffee has infinite ways to burn you because of it's liquid properties. Not to say hash browns can't burn, but it's easier to avoid with a solid object. I genuinely do not blame DnD for this, it's the parents responsibility.

I can't count HOW MANY times I've eaten fast food and burned my tongue on it. ALL of us here have burned our mouths one way or another and have learned about testing food first. We cannot blame EVERY establishment for overly hot food when usually the common complaint is:

"My food is cold."

Enough said.

@tedyc03: +1 for common sense. Brava.

o_O

I'd consider this a "question the common sense of the OP" rather than a full on blame. They're usually a lukewarm soggy mess, maybe the OP assumed this - still doesn't mean they don't need to check.

If fried, the potatoes/hashbrowns were probably cooked in oil at least 190 degrees. Once out of the fryer, the internal temperature would have had to be maintained either below 45 degrees (41 in some states) or above 140 degrees. It is completely plausible that had these potatoes been out of the fryer, or even an oven, for any length of time the outer crust would have cooled while the inside remained hot enough to meet state food safety codes. Any defense by DD is likely going to include what the company has to comply with to serve safe food in this community, how long they allow food to be kept between cooktime and serve time, and whether their hot holding equipment was in good working order. Maybe, even such records as temperature logs that show equipment temperature and product temperature. I can't see how the parents really have a case.

@Spinfusor: The jury found Stella partially at fault for exactly that, they also found McDonalds at fault for serving dangerously hot coffee. Coffee is far more regularly served at a much cooler temerature than it is brewed because people like to drink it when it gets served to them. McDonalds claimed in the trail that people weren't suppoed to drink it when they got it, but should wait.

They knew it was too hot to drink, they approached the trial with indignity and disrespect, and they lost because of it.

So does this woman want Dunkin Donuts to use a thermometer on each hash brown before they give them to people?

Seriously, how are you going to regulate the individual temperature of hash browns? They are all dumped in boiling oil at the same time, and then set aside to drain, and then maybe put under a heat lamp. Does she want to regulate how much time they have to be sitting aside before they can be served? Who is going to want to eat crappy hashbrowns that have been sitting around for 20 minutes?

Brew time ≠ Serving temperature

Check out the above link. Seriously, before you embarrass yourself further. It'll explain that over 700 others were victimized, several of whom most likely not wearing cotton sweatpants. As well as demolishing every other Fox-approved talking point you're agitating to type out.

(Not as adorable: siding with Big Business' right to scorch grandparent's nether regions without being accountable. Are you sure that's the position you want to stick with? Thanksgiving's coming up: are you sure you want to risk getting seated at the kiddy table?!)

Yes, you're right, neglect is the mother's not Dunkin' Donuts.

Yeah, I could be wrong about the hash browns as it's just a theory, but sounds possible to me. However the only tots/hash browns I have microwaved were frozen, and then they usually have some ice crystals on the outside because of my crummy freezer so I can't be certain on that. Maybe theirs was cooked/fried earlier and was just sitting out until reheated and that's why it super heated the inside, but again, we don't even know if it was micro'd in the first place.

Silly lawsuit IMO.

The mother was driving and fed her then 15-month-old a hashbrown in the back seat. He was reclining slightly in his car seat, the hashbrown fell on his neck and the mother did not see it or could not stop driving to tend to her baby. The neglect is with the mother.

How was the baby dressed in Massachusetts in January? I suspect some sort of winter wear that would have impeded a full range of baby arm movements.

The point is that hash browns are supposed to be served hot and are likely served hot across the counter or at the drive-thru window. Food typically cools fairly rapidly by the time the consumer takes their tray to the table, sits down and starts eating -- or drives away, enters traffic, opens the bag, finds the item, etc...

Some consumers like their food piping hot, some don't mind when it's cooled off to lukewarm. Either way, it's the consumer's choice to eat the food hot/warm/cold. Therefore, the parent's responsibility to make sure the food is cool for a baby.

I do not want to eat cold hash browns - I want them super hot. But I wouldn't hand them over to my 2 year old until they were sufficiently cooled off.

Blaming a restaurant for serving hot food? Incredibly stupid. Next we'll hear about someone suing a restaurant for serving salmonella in undercooked meat because the restaurant industry is afraid to cook things too hot!

Hasn't anyone ever served themselves tea or coffee at home and it was just as hot? That's why:
1. You let the tea/coffee/hot chocolate sit and cool for a while.
and/or
2. You blow on the top to cool that sucka down.

I have NEVER served myself tea or hot chocolate that was cool enough to drink immediately (I hate coffee) and have ALWAYS had to let it cool for actively try to cool it.

Grandma was negligent. Holding it between her legs and spilling it on herself in a stopped car should have tipped you off to that much. She managed to spill it probably by squeezing the cup between her legs and making it spill over the top.

"Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin," ([en.wikipedia.org] , link to citation: [en.wikipedia.org]).

"They served it back then at 190º, which is impossible to do without Dr. Frankenstein type heating equipment."
McDonald's recommendations at the time were for coffee to be served at 180-190º. Cuisinart's DCC-1150, a consumer-grade coffee maker, produces 180º coffee ([products.howstuffworks.com]).

From Angelina and Jack McMahon v Bunn-o-Matic Corp., et al. ([caselaw.lp.findlaw.com]):
"full thickness third degree burn injuries would require [ . . . ] 3 seconds of exposure at 179 degrees F."
"ANSI/AHAM CM-1-1986, which the American National Standards Institute adopted for home coffee makers. Standard 5.2.1 provides:
On completion of the brewing cycle and within a 2 minute interval, the beverage temperature in the dispensing vessel of the coffee maker while stirring should be between the limits of 170 degrees F and 205 degrees F (77 degrees C and 96 degrees C)."

Bunn says:
"We recommend a quick brew time, using a brewer that keeps water at 200° Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)..." ([www.bunn.com])
(under "don't") "Re-heat for serving any coffee with a temperature below 175° F" ([www.bunn.com])

The National Coffee Association says that "your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction," and, "Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. "([www.ncausa.org]).

Read the judicial decision from a similar case which was thrown out:
[www.bailii.org]

"Try basing your opinion on facts next time" is a weak and overused phrase.

Dunkin' Donuts IS NOT the people that should worry about the temprature of their items to make sure it is safe for a child.

... that is, and I know the OP does not want to hear this, but that is the parents job.

If they gave the kid food that was too hot, then they are responsible. You don't just give a kid really hot food. I know this and I don't even have kids. It fell out of his mouth because it burned his mouth, too.

Hash browns are fried in really hot grease, just like french fries. They're hot. If they're not, the people have to remake them and no one likes that.

Furthermore while coffee is expected to be hot, it's not expected to cause third degree burns and emergency surgery when spilled as with the McDonalds case. The actual facts of the case reveal this, as opposed to the "facts" that you heard or read about. You can actually find pictures of the damage online.

You fail as a parent when you don't do everything you can to prevent it.

Rule of thumb: kids bounce as long as it's under 6 feet. 6'1" is when they crunch :-)

"Microwaves are absorbed at the surface, and also for some distance into the interior. How far the microwaves penetrate will depend on the makeup and structure of the object being heated. A very thick object (like a whole roast) will probably absorb all the microwaves before they reach the center, while something thinner (a pancake-like hamburger patty) will let microwaves penetrate to the middle. Since the microwaves will reflect off the sides of the oven, they will bounce around until absorbed by the object(s) inside.
Wherever the microwaves are absorbed you get heat.

Since most of this is interior, it is correct to say microwaves cook from the inside. However, this is not the same as saying from the center out. The previously mentioned huge chunk of meat will cook from the outer layers (maybe a couple of inches deep) towards the inside. The thinner slice or patty will cool all the way through at about the same rate."

To a degree, with are both right, and incorrect.

I am familiar with hot pockets, and yeah it's almost a requirement to poke holes in it or cut them in half to heat up the inside. Pop tarts have the exact opposite effect, most likely caused by the holes in them.

My point? Crazy shit happens to stuff in the microwave, and while I don't place blame solely on either party involved nor do I have all the information, but it wouldn't surprise me that the hash browns produced that same "pop tart effect".

As far as a dry outside, I think that MAY be possible. Speaking on water boiling on the outside, water is a pretty good thermal conductor.

The family's attorney insists that this case is absolutely nothing like the infamous McDonald's scalding-hot coffee case ...

That lawyers commenting here are saying that McDonald's suit had merit, is sort of like asking a fox how secure the henhouse should be. They profit too handsomely from frivolous suits, for their claims to be credible.

As for food cooking from the inside out, microwaves are capable of that. Depends on the food and the microwave oven itself, but I've found it possible for something I've nuked to be lukewarm on the outside and steaming inside.

[www.dunkindonuts.com]

Whats next? She sues that maker of outlets because her child shocks himself with one? Its part of being a kid and learning.

Good grief.

Next week DD will be serving COLD hashbrowns because the public demands safer food.

@failurate: This is probably the answer. The hash brown is a poor heat conductor, but through convection, the outside can cool down pretty rapidly while the inside remains magma hot.

Thinking about it some more, it is possible that a microwave could be to blame. It would be able to heat the entire hash brown up to a high temperature without burning it like boiling oil would.

I think the most important question is: what the hell kind of parents are feeding a 23 month old a hash brown from Dunkin Donuts in the first place?!

or onto your tits, for us dd's

There's a part of me that thinks the parents went "YES! Finally, we can sue someone to get money!".

microwaves excite molecules, but if you put a cup of water and a cup of oil in a microwave, the oil will be MUCH hotter than the water.

so I'm not sure the "water" molecule thing holds true, it's probably has to do with the type of liquid used, and damn, my physisist partner is not answering his phone right now.

If she took the food and then drove home/work/daycare/whatever and doled it out, the hashbrowns would have cooled a bit. Inside of them would still have been hot, but outside probably warm/lukewarm. Did mom crack one open to check the inside of said hashbrown to see how warm it was, or did she hand off the entire thing, and let kid figure it out on his own?

A hashbrown when fried in oil will cook the whole thing, not just ohh, just part of it, and not the rest of it. Cooling time will vary for the 'browns since it will depend on how long they were sitting, or if something is help insulate them, etc.

Some are wondering how the kid got the thing on his neck. Kids are pretty amazing and will do things that no one expects. Said kid may have missed his mouth and smashed the 'brown up to his neck instead, or maybe he was playing with it.

I won't rehash them, but the suit wasn't frivolous at all, and based on the facts, McDonald's was repeatedly held culpable by a jury and appeals courts. That's why we try cases in court using evidence, not in the press or on blogs using opinions.

@macinjosh: Kudos to you, sir!

@ribex: basic heat disappation rules would mean that as the outside cools the heat from the inside would transfer to the outside maintaining the outside still being cooler than the inside, but not so much where the inside would be superheated and the outside warm.

Who would have thought that how food would be hot. Just like the people who sued over hot coffee burning them.

Is there no limit to human stupidity?

Um, this is a sad tale. What parent does not break open something like a hash brown to see it's hot inside?? Food cools from the outside in because of air and of course, the inside would be hot.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just very unlikely.

If the restaurant is negligent in any way, I should think we should all fear the future. Does that mean that if you have a Mommy Club over to your house and one of the moms gives her child a tater tot that is too hot for them you can be sued?

I think we need to take a step back and look at taking responsibility for our safety. There is no presumption here that all foods purchased from restaurants are not so hot as to burn you. Especially things that are *fried*. If that presumption exists, we might as well eat everything cold, because it will be.

Still, I wouldn't hand a 2-year-old something to eat where I wouldn't be able to supervise them.

@madog: Have you ever microwaved a hot pocket and noticed the center is still cold? Microwaves use radiation to penetrate, it will bombard the outside with the microwaves and slowly they heat, as they heat, they transfer that heat to the insides bit by bit.

Water will as it heats move, hence why you will notice a small tremor as it heats up, but it will not boil until the temperture of the water is nearly universally the boil point because the center of the water would cool down the outer layers.

It is the parent's responsibility to verify the safety of whatever they hand to their toddler, no some third party who served hot food TO THE PARENT, not the toddler...

Sheesh!

I wouldn't just hand a fresh hash brown to a small child, especially considering the boiling point of oil. I hope the mother in question doesn't hand over cups of hot tea the child either.

I bet the mother's fingers were already warmed up from pulling food out of the bag and she didn't notice how hot the hash brown was before handing it to the child. If the hash brown was still in the wrapper or put inside a napkin then the baby wouldn't know any better than to eat what mom handed him.

It's sad that the baby got hurt but the parents have to accept responsibility for this and not blame DD.

And this is also a frivolous lawsuit, anything that is fried is hot on the inside, no matter how it feels on the outside. You go to a restaurant or fast food place, you expect your food to be hot.
Anything that is hot, there will be steam coming out of it, that tells you right there that it is too hot to eat.

@Maous: but microwaves heat from the outside in, not the inside out, if that was the case, the outside would be scalding hot beyond the inside, as the heat penetrates from the outside to the inside......it's highly unlikely it is that well insulated.

What are they suing for? Their toddler's "extreme psychological damage?" Loss of income? Wooooohoooooo! This is our chance to get on easy street!

It's plausible. I'm not saying Dunkin' Donuts is 100% at fault, just putting up another viewpoint.

(I haven't been to a DD in forever.)

For everyone who thinks that they were heated in a microwave, the hash browns couldnt have been, a microwave heats from the outside out, hence why you are supposed to check for an internal temperture of food when cooking it in a microwave.

If the hashbrowns were hot on the inside and cold on the outside, that falls outside the range of a microwave for sure. Could have been deep fried then set out for a bit, keeping the insides insulated and hot and the outsides lukewarm.

That said, unless the store handed the burn making food directly to the child, it's the parent's/caregiver's responsibility to not burn their child with food.

NB: I'm a parent of a 2.5yr old.

This is the parents fault, plain and simple.

When I give my kid food, I make sure it's not too hot. When she gets them hash browns, I do the food-to-my-lip deal to test it because I *know* they are hot. I also would never give her an entire hash brown...break it in half...make sure. if it's still hot after a minute or so I start blowing on it...my daughter has even picked up the habit of blowing on anything remotely warm and being very cautious about hot food.

People these days don't want to take ownership for their own actions/faults and are convinced that there is always something/one else to blame...especially when their eyes to the 'cha-ching' noise and dollar symbols replace the pupils.

and also, if it was hot enough to BLISTER the kids skin...it was hot on the outside. Hash browns are not insulators of the seven levels of hell.

I bet here is what really happened: Mom gives kid the hash brown, not caring because she's too busy wanting to stuff her own face. Kid takes a bite, not knowing any better..."mommy did hand it to me, its gotta be safe". Kid screams, spits it out, throws what's in the paw, gets burned. Mom goes on lawyer rampage because, after all, it's not her fault.

Dunkin is a TurboChef oven. Many quick serve restaurants are now using these ovens and can be most easily seen in a Subway.

A TurboChef oven combines a 1000 degree Fahrenheit radiant heat, a convection oven with 500 degree Fahrenheit at 60 MPH, and a microwave oven at the same time in the same oven. This results in cook times in excess of 12 times faster.

The suit may have merit as the oven may have been programmed incorrectly by the corporate chef/team who designed the cook cycle for the individual product. Additionally, the employees of this franchisee may have incorrectly loaded the product causing improper cooking. (e.g. loading 14 hash browns when the oven cycle calls for 12 hash browns.)

It's coffee wasn't and isn't unreasonably hot. It needs to be that hot to be brewed properly, and plenty of other places serve coffee at the same temperature or hotter. Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Burger King, and McDonald's have all been sued multiple times for coffee burns. The cases are almost always thrown out.

It's not McDonald's fault that Stella Liebeck was too dumb to move the cup of coffee away from her crotch before she sloppily opened it.

I'm guessing "microwave" on this too, because they can heat extremely unevenly.

it is warmer inside because the cooler crust has already cooled down since it is the first thing that is in contact with the cooler environment. Things cool by heat rejection from the outside inwards, because the outer parts have to cool down first for the inner part to then also cool. The same way when you heat an object by classic heat addition only backwards.

Someone needs to figure out how to twist the latter into a lawsuit.

Based on the facts of this complaint, I think that the case here is frivolous. The parents gave food to a child that was certainly too hot for that child, and their negligence would outweigh any negligence the company had.

The challenge comes in the serving where, yes, it needs a little time to cool off to 155°F-175°F. This has historically been the responsibility of the consumer. The lesson I take from her suit is that one would be advised to not use one's legs as a facility for adding cream to a cup of hot coffee.

@atomw7:
The McDonalds lawsuit was stil BS.
Coffee drinkers know coffee is brewed at temps that will burn you, that is why you have to let it cool down.
I have never seen a cup of coffee that could be drank right after being brewed.
This woman has no one to blame for the spill but her own stupidity.

This is worse than the McDonalds coffee lawsuit.

Some people need to stop having kids. Especially those that exploit them to sue large corporations for stupid reasons.

Then again, she's my first, and I may have been overly sensitive...

And yeah, maybe 15 month olds shouldn't be eating hot things unsupervised in the back seat of a car.

Wait, wait, wait......Dunkin' Donuts serves hash browns now?

Still, can Duncan be held responsible for a use of their product they could not foresee? And should they really be feeding an infant such garbage?

But come on what kind of magic hashbrown is lukewarm on the outside and hot enough to blister skin on the inside. This is downright ridiculous. Unless the attorney in this case can come up with one hell of a good explanation here I think he should be sanctioned.

....A microwave? Maybe the workers re-heated them.