Starbucks has settled a lawsuit in which a barista accidentally spilled hot coffee on a 7-month-old baby.
Ethan Thorn was an infant when his parents brought him into a Starbucks in Somerville’s Davis Square in April, 2006. According to the lawsuit, a store employee serving a cup of coffee to Ethan’s father accidentally spilled coffee on the baby’s legs and groin, causing second-degree burns. The baby was in his father’s arms at the time.
The baby, now 2, was treated at Shriners Hospital in Boston over the course of several months, according to the lawsuit.
The $70,000 settlement does not require Starbucks to admit any liability, and will be placed in a trust for the boy.
Here’s the odd part:
The suit, filed on behalf of the family by Manchester lawyer Orestes Brown, said the coffee shop employee “had a duty of reasonable care not to serve hot coffee to an infant.”
What a strange way of wording it.
Starbucks settles suit over coffee-scalded infant for $70K [Gloucester Daily Times via Starbucks Gossip]
(Photo:Vince Brown (attila))
More From Consumerist
-
Starbucks Baristas Say New Reusable Cups Are Selling Well, But Will The Trend Last?
-
Starbucks’ Decision Not To Change Menu Flies In The Face Of Bloomberg’s Sugary Drinks Ban
-
Starbucks Apparently Thinks Someone Was Cruel Enough To Name Their Daughter “Vagina”
-
Starbucks Store Gives Away Two Months Of Tips To Charity
-
Facebook Settles Lawsuit That Claimed "Sponsored Stories" Turned Users Into Marketers
@Mercurypdx: Thanks 8)
I’ve had customers spill coffee on me. Where’s my $70,000?
This sounds like an idiot-fest. poor kid
Jesus, people, it’s a baby, not a bomb. It isn’t hard to hold a baby in one arm and something else in another; after about two days, it’s remarkably easy to do (e.g., rock baby while stumbling back to your bedroom half-asleep and trying not to trip over toys/laundry/diapers).
I’m certainly not going to advocate holding your child while using a chainsaw, or cooking sausage on a stovetop… but being served coffee or carrying a cup? That’s not “putting the kid in harm’s way” unless you thrust him in the server’s face or let baby play with the hot cup. (Christ, it doesn’t even say if the spilled beverage was intended for the father. Maybe he ordered a frappucino and SOMEBODY ELSE’S scalding coffee was tossed on them.)
I once had a waiter drop a tray of empty glasses and one smashed on my head and glass shards fell in my infant daughter’s hair. No cuts, in fact she didn’t even wake up — great outcome, but could have been worse. By the same logic many commenters are using, I am a bad mother for taking my child to a restaurant which had glass on the premises because I should have known that some of them could be thrown at me.
Face it: babies go places with their parents. Starbucks isn’t a strip bar or porn shop or liquor store — it’s a store that sells coffee and there’s nothing inappropriate about children going in with their parents.
Did anyone even think that maybe he had the baby in a sling? I guess you all can call me a terrible mother, but wow, I’ve had fussy kids that I put in the sling and take out for a walk. And oh my gosh, sometimes I want a drink while I’m walking! And if we’re at the mall, I might just walk to the food court and get one!
Admittedly, I don’t drink coffee, so that’s a non-issue for me, but I have spilled smoothies and pizza on my kids. But you know what? If I’d have stopped walking, they would have started screaming…
I do agree that in this situation, the best case would have been for him to NOT be wearing a baby and getting a hot drink, but that doesn’t mean he deserves to have his parenting insulted. At least he is there, holding his baby.
@Sockatume: And I’m pretty sure you’re wrong. The generally accepted definition of infant is less than 1 year; after that he’s a toddler.