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

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...

Why was there a lawsuit? *$ should have agreed to pay for any medical costs, and that should have been the end of it.

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

weird... invisible comments are go!

haha i like how it says the barista had a "duty to not serve hot coffee to an infant". yeah i blame starbucks for trying to target the infant demographic. get 'em hooked young

@Consumerist: The $70,000 settlement doesn't not require... What a strange way of wording it.

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

@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.

My husband's mother once spilled hot coffee on him when he was an infant with resulting 3rd degree burns. Wonder if we should sue her? For the currently non-visible burn scars?

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!

@Crumbles: Pretty sure that's just a typo.

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

This sounds fishy. An infant? Why was the father holding the infant with one arm and grabbing hot coffee with the other? Most infants are in strollers or are kept in their car seats when brought inside a restaurant or store. It's unusual for someone to carry in their infant like this--especially when they know they are going in to order to hot coffee--juggling their change, money etc . . .

@KingPsyz: I don't think that assault is a valid response to what sounds like an accident. I'd hope that a parent's priority would be on getting this child any necessary medical care, not enacting some sort of revenge.

"Ethan Thorn was an infant when his parents brought him into a Starbucks in Somerville's Davis Square in April, 2006."

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

theirs also a risk you take when you go to a store and order a hot cup of coffee. 'bucks should pay for the medical bills certainly, but $70,000? Come on now. If it cost that much, then someone should investigate how much hospitals are overcharging insurance companies (well, they should do that anyway, because it's sort of becoming an issue)

Rainman moment: "Hot coffee burn baby! Hot coffee burn baby!"

...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!"

Does $70,000 seem unusually, well, reasonable, to anyone else? Maybe it's the fact that I'm living in California currently, but it doesn't really seem outrageous. Especially considering the deep pockets we all know Starbucks has. Kudos to the plaintiff...?

@Nelsormensch:

So I take it you don't have children?

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.

@ClayS: Though in this day and age, I wonder, what could he have done? Put his child down and leave him alone while he went to get his cup of fiery hot magma? If his son were kidnapped, could we scream negligence? I don't think there was a problem with carrying a child in your arms and receiving your fiery hot magma, it's just that the coffeemonkey in this story spilled some of it, and it happened to be on the kid.

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.

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.

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.

Its definitely the fathers fault that the the baby got burned. Its also definitley the servers fault. No need to argue, they can both be at fault. The father could have held the infant in such a way that any coffee that spilled would not have come near his infant and the server could have seen that the father was holding an infant and slowed down and or waited for the father to move the infant away from the counter before placing the coffee down. I would assume that the baby was right against the edge of the counter, the coffee tipped over and the coffee slid along the counter until it reached the edge of the counter, getting on the baby.

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.

@MercuryPDX: yeah, seriously, in 50 years their will be no corporations because they can't afford all the law suits we can possibly think up.

@Aladdyn:

Ahh assumption is a great thing isn't it?

I would like to know how the coffee was spilled on the infant.

Without that specific information, it's really impossible to determine whether the settlement was warranted, and whether or not there was negligence on the part of the Starbucks employee or the parent.

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

Oh, for Pete's sake.

([en.wikipedia.org]'s_Restaurants)

Stupid HTML

([en.wikipedia.org]'s_Restaurants)

I am full of fail tonight.

I give up.

personally i see no reason for a baby to be at starbucks. i say the parents are being greedy and using the baby as a tool to get money. greedy bastards.

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.

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.

Shouldn't the suit read "had a duty of reasonable care not to serve hot coffee on an infant"?

Sounds like the father is at fault for juggling a baby and coffee....

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.

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

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.

@gingerCE: Two words: Brittney Spears

Um, the starbucks lids are pretty tight and don't spill too much coffee, even if jostled, so what happened here?? Lidless coffee?

I never hand hot coffee to people, EVER. It's just not done. Jesus, have we learned nothing? It's effing hot, people. Set it down and let the retards spill their own hot latte on their groins.

@no.no.notorious: Sounds like a plan

@KingPsyz: AMEN! I even make jokes by saying, "Caution: The beverage you are about to enjoy is extremely hot." It's funny, because that's what the cups say.

@kantwait: Hm, good point. I once had one sommersault out of my car cup holder and land upside down in the little coin tray underneath. Nothing spilled. :)

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.

I can't wait till a tobacco company accidentally spills its product on an infant's groin... $700,000,000 lawsuit!!

That's not the Davis Sq Starbucks in the picture! The one pictured looks quaint and reasonably unique which is exactly not the Davis Sq Starbucks!

@dwayne_dibbly: [tinyurl.com] is your friend.

A baby's skin burns more easily than an adults. Take Starbucks out of the equation and the father still should not be holding a baby and a hot cup of coffee at the same time.

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

Kinda a non story.

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.

Im sorry WHO TAKES A FUCKING INFANT TO A STARBUCKS!. Seriously thats just insane....

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.

@Falconfire:

Huh? Sarcasm, right?