Where's the Line?
An Indiana couple are suing Starbucks, saying one of the company's units served a cup of hot chocolate that seriously burned their little girl.
The mother ordered an adult-sized hot chocolate for herself and a child-sized hot chocolate for her daughter. The suit says that when the mother drove off, the girl's drink spilled in her lap, causing the injury. Starbucks says it is company policy to serve kids' drinks at lower temperatures that will not cause burns.
The girl was young enough to be buckled into a child restraint seat in the back—meaning she was pretty young.
Seems to me there might have been multiple failures in this situation. Starbucks has a policy, but occasionally employees mess up. I always, always try Baby A's drinks first, not just for temperature, for for freshness and safety. (She's been served rotten milk in a restaurant before, but that's for a different post.) And I'd never, ever let her hold even a mildly warm drink in the car. Really, she's lucky to get a drink of water when she's in her car seat. It's too messy.
What I'm getting at is I couldn't sue a company for my own mistakes. Not that I'm not perfect—it's hard to resist a child who's screaming for a treat, and it's easy to forget the taste-test.
What's your take? Where is that precarious edge between parental and corporate responsibility? Really, this ties into a much bigger picture—at what point are parents of overweight or diabetic kids responsible for what those kids eat at quick-serve restaurants? Can I sue because my child is obese? I say not--it is my responsibility--but it's an interesting debate, one that I'd like eventually to have here.
Comment and let me know your thoughts on this Starbucks case.
(Thanks to Blogging Baby and AdPulp for the heads-up.)
Comments
I have a fix, actually: tort reform. No one gets to sue. It's that simple. It forces everyone to pay attention. The parents wouldn't have assumed the temperature was fine, and having checked, would have made a judgement call on whether everything was fine, or ask for a new chocolate or a refund. The store has to oblige the request in the latter.
As an aside, I just think you don't know the right lawyers :-).
Posted by: April Naaden | November 21, 2006 08:35 PM
April, thanks for your thoughts. If no one could sue, though, what would happen if the restaurant truly was negligent—for example, an employee put poison in food that you or your child ate?
Years ago I had a fascinating tour of a lab that finds out what kinds of poisons are in foods, in cases just like that. It happens. It's scary.
Isn't it more the job of the courts to immediately throw out cases with no merit? So what we really need to reform is the definition of "merit." I'm not the suing type, but I also can't abide the thought that corporations can do whatever they want with no fear of recourse from the consumers they serve.
OTOH, I totally agree that parents need to pay a lot of attention. For instance, Baby A has twice been served milk that's rotten. Now I always taste her milk before she does. Ick, but true.
Posted by: QSMama / Lea | November 22, 2006 05:46 AM