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.

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.

Yes once you breed you are required to remain with in softly padded areas with access only available to lukewarm liquids and rounded foam topped edges...

Huh? Sarcasm, right?

Why was there a lawsuit, Starbucks' insurance policy should cover all medical bills… It's a horrible thing to happen, but the father is equally to blame IMO. After he got his hot coffee, how did he expect to hold it in one hand and an infant in the other? The whole incident lacks common sense.

Bottom line, father put infant in harms way, the unexpected happened and it was probably going to happen on his way back to his seat anyway. Heck, setting the child on an unpaved stone road would offer a lower risk of death or dismemberment. Stupid father, stupid lawsuit, clumsy employee.

who's fault? Life. Sh*t happens. that's why starbucks, and all businesses have insurance.

70 grand sounds about right. A blip on starbucks' insurance radar.

The father was wrong to put the baby in vicinity of hot coffee. The employee was wrong to spill the coffee on baby.

OTOH, if you put the sippy part in line with the seam on the cup, you get a constant stream of leaking coffee.

I'd guess the lid slipped off, or he ordered it to drink there, in a earth friendly ceramic mug.

well considering the article mentions both parents were present, htere was no reason for the father to be handed anything while he was holding the baby, and without the specifics of the incident, that may have been what caused the spill.

for all we know, the barista attempted to hand the father the coffee and the father did not grab it as he probablly had no intention of holding a coffee while holding his son.

@chieddy. You can't get a 3rd degree burn (blackened and crispy) from hot coffee, only a severe 2nd degree.

it also sounds like the guy behind the counter caused an accident... I wonder how much liability Starbucks would have if he maliciously spilled coffee on a baby.

At the mom & pop I used to work for we ALWAYS set the coffee down on the counter and reminded every customer, even the regulars "BE CAREFUL, IT'S HOT!"

It was more about good consistant customer service than avoiding lawsuits.

I've often wondered why Starbuck's did not have a policy of setting the drink on the counter, and never handing it directly to the customer, for just this type of reason. It seems like a safety/liability no-brainer.

I am full of fail tonight.

([en.wikipedia.org]'s_Restaurants)

Stupid HTML

After the whole [en.wikipedia.org]'s_Restaurants)"> McDonalds fiasco, $70,000 seems pretty reasonable for medical bills.

@Aladdyn:

Ahh assumption is a great thing isn't it?

I used to work at a retail store and it was amazing to see the number of morons who would walk around pushing a stroller with hot coffee in the cupholder. Every now and then they would lose a cup when going over a bump but all the ones I saw landed on the floor luckily for their babys.

Those cups tend to be slippery on the outside when you hold them. I would not think of drinking hot coffee when holding an infant. Even a small amount spilled would burn a baby's sensitive skin. This must be their first baby. Hopefully they will be more careful with subsequent children. I am very glad the baby is okay.

It's been a while since my kid was that age, but I think she was usually in a stroller when out and about.

Have you ever spilled a drink? I have and its better not to be holding something important with the other hand. True the "coffeemonkey" did it in this case, but the father could easily have spilled it just as well.

It sucks, and I'm glad the kid is okay, and I'm glad they get $70K which will cover his medical bills and even if they didn't need the money, it'll go into a trust for college (I hope). Maybe the kid will become a lawyer.

True, it could be worse than $70K with the right jury. If it wasn't Starbucks, but instead the local deli, it might be nothing. I hope the people that cheer that award aren't the same one's that whine that Starbucks charges too much.

Hopefully the plaintiff has learned better than to hold an infant in one arm while receiving hot coffee.

@Nelsormensch:

So I take it you don't have children?

...the coffee shop employee "had a duty of reasonable care not to serve hot coffee to an infant."

[Rewind/Replay]
New article: "Starbucks refuses to serve father coffee for holding baby!"

I'm pretty sure he's still an infant now.

Right, that's totally the same thing...

Note, this was 30 years ago. They didn't go after the people who manufactured the pot or the onesie he was wearing that had plastic that melted to his body either. The vast amount of lost cash here astounds me!

@Leiterfluid:

The Dad didn't take the baby to a bar or a knife fight, he took it to a coffee shop and the dumbass wage slave spilled hot coffee on his baby.

The kid should thank every diety known that the father didn't beat his ass to a pulp then and there and that his (surely former) employer footed the bill for his ineptitude.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. Seriously guys? A professional blog with a double negative?

weird... invisible comments are go!

What's the father's liability for placing him in danger?

Jesus... if someone spilled scolding hot coffee on my baby a lawsuit would be the least of their worries after having to take care of that whole facial reconstruction issue...

Well, the Starbucks employee was in fact not serving coffee to the infant. So, case dismissed.