"and have not yet explained what kind of amazing heating device cooks hash browns from the inside out."

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

Ok, I'm an attorney. I read the papers in the Mcdonalds suit and as absurd as it sounded I understood the lawsuit. McDonalds Coffee is/was outrageously hot.

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.

@atomw7: I suspect that a hash brown is an excellent insulator, so the outside may remain cool the the touch, but the inside scalding hot.

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?

As what Impudence said, the mcDonalds lawsuit was understandable, check out the details of it here: [www.lectlaw.com]

So, this mother checked every single hash brown for safety at every inch? i think not. Most likely she handed the pack of hash brown to the toddler in the car seat and let him at it. Since he is somewhat reclined in his car seat the item in question has no other place to drop but on his person. Parents should take the responsibility of raising their children.

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

I don't understand how it fell from his mouth onto his neck, and then burned him. Wouldn't it have burned his mouth too?

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

@jacques: This. I was paranoid about feeding my kid anything in a car seat until she was about 3 -- if she started to choke when I was in the middle of freeway traffic, what the hell would I do?

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

Nothing like the McDonald's hot coffee case? I guess that means this lawsuit has no merit whatsoever.

God forbid our hash browns be served hot.

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

This is worse than the McDonalds coffee lawsuit.

How large a piece of hash-brown would they have to give the kid for it to be lukewarm on the outside and blistering hot on the inside?

@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.

@impudence: McDonald's coffee is stored at an entirely correct temperature of 185±5°F, as backed up by science and presumably by revenues as well. At least 99.99999% of all cups of McDonald's coffee served each year do not cause third-degree burns.

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.

I've read the McDonnald's case, and I think it was reasonable case but overblown by the media and held up as a frivolous case by the right.

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 Italian writer Beppe Severgnini wrote in his memoir, Ciao America, that Americans serve their coffee too hot and their beer too cold.

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

@atomw7: Yes, a lot of people thought the McDonalds case was some frivolous money seeker, until they read that the woman had third degree burns to her legs and genitals, requiring hospitalization and full skin grafts, and that McDonalds coffee had similarly burned a few hundred people before her.

@impudence: I don't know if it's anything similar, but when I was young and worked at McDonald's, if we ran out of grilled chicken and didn't want to wait the 5 minutes to grill up some more, we'd throw one in the microwave for 90 seconds and it came out warm on the outside.. blistering hot on the inside. Could it be a similar situation with the hashbrowns? I wouldn't be surprised.

"...and have not yet explained what kind of amazing heating device cooks hash browns from the inside out."

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.

I want to know what Verucalise has to say about this.

@TinaBringMeTheAx: That it would come into contact with human flesh? That's not only foreseeable, that's expected. The burn happened on the neck because that's where the food landed, not because it wouldn't have burned his mouth (it's quite possible, in fact, that the kid opened his mouth because the thing was so hot, thus saving him from more damaging oral injuries).

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

@Niphil: The McDonald's lawsuit didn't have any merit.

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.

@atomw7: "and have not yet explained what kind of amazing heating device cooks hash browns from the inside out."

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.)

@jacques: Different contact times, I suspect. I bet the heat caused the kid to open his mouth and that's when the food dropped out of it.

Coming soon to Dunkin Donuts... Hash Whites

can I blame the parents and not get my ass handed to me on this one? Given this is my opinion and all...

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.

@Yoko Broke Up The Beatles: for at least a year and possibly more at this point.

@Moosehawk: if they could somehow be retroactively removed from the gene pool entirely, even better.

@floraposte: You guys need more experience with fried food. As a fan of fried cheese curds, the outside crust cools much faster than the inner core. This holds true for breaded mushrooms and potatoes (especially it tot or pressed and shaped hash brown form) also.

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.

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.

Do I speak for many here when I ask: Dunkin' Donuts sells hash browns??

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

I understand people love to sling the typical "Blame the OP" bit, but try looking at it from less of a cynical standpoint.
*Maybe* it went down like this: The hash browns are heated in a microwave, or as someone mentioned earlier could possibly be a great insulator, leaving the outside warm and the inside hot. The mom picks them up, assumes they are a safe temperature to eat and hands them off.
The kid takes a bite, and probably instantly feels the heat and drops it/spits it out where it falls onto his neck, now bitten open, and burns him.

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

Is it DD's fault that you (as a parent) hand your child hash-browns that are right out of the microwave/deep fryer/whatever? Is it every restaurant's duty to server lukewarm food so it couldn't possibly be too hot for a toddler?

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

@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.

@Yoko Broke Up The Beatles: you aren't missing anything, they are HORRIBLE.

I get how it could have been hot, I just don't get how it fell out of his mouth onto his neck. I'm sitting in my chair twisting my head and neck all different ways. The best I can manage is onto the chest.

@naturefreak85: Absolutely correct. Anyone who has bitten into a hot on the outside/still frozen in the middle burrito should know this.
People have weird thoughts about how microwaves work.

@thewriteguy: well at least for the guy who asked the same thing 30 mins ago and several posts above.

The McDonald's suit was a frivolous lawsuit, it's coffee, it's supposed to be hot.

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.

@zentex:
I agree with you. I don't have kids but I have watched my friends with small children act incredibly careful when it came to food temperature, checking for pits or seeds or any other choking hazards, and that the food is the right size for the kid to handle.

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.

@Spinfusor:
When coffee's hot enough to fuse your skin together, then yeah, it might be unreasonably hot.

@naturefreak85: Dont microwaves work by vibrating water molecules so fast that they heat up? Maybe the inside was moist and the outside was dry it would have heated up much quicker. That's why your not supposed to microwave poptarts because the moist inside turns into lava while the dry outside remains only warm to the touch. Also, if microwaves only heated from the outside in, then microwave water would cause it to boil on the outside. However, when you do that the water boils on the "inside", and once you break the surface tension of the water, or the "outside", only then does the water "explode". Flash boiling might be different, but it seems logical to me from my long time microwave use. But I could be wrong.

@impudence: My Torts I Prof told us just this past summer that the underlying reason for the McD's suit was that management of that particular restaurant had been repeatedly warned by corporate to "turn down" the heat on the coffee. Also, that particular restaurant had been in trouble numerous times with other customers because of the "overly hot coffee" issues and with them getting burned. The plaintiff that got burned suffered third degree burns to her labia and inside thighs needed skin grafts. Basically the lawsuit was "waiting to happen". Because of this, I always wonder what the story of the plaintiffs will be in any case regarding a restaurant and how I ask myself how would I approach such a case. Money talks as they say, but wouldn't you also say that under the same circumstances with this hash brown case, that a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person, under the same circumstances (most parents), would "blow" on the tator to cool it off or even break it apart to cool it off? I would think that the plaintiff's have contributed to the injuries sustained by their kid.

@jacques: 23 months old, not 15. But I'm with you on the no-hot-things-unsupervised thing.

@zentex: AMEN! But women like you are going to cause attorney's to lose business thinking like that. LOL. And me too if I ever get out of law school. =(

OF COURSE it was hot - if it was served cold, she'd gripe about that, too.

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!

@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.

@jacques: Likely his mouth was full of nice, protective saliva and he had an oh-crap-that's-hot reflex and opened his mouth to let it out.

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

@Hirayuki: My understanding is that it happened in January, and the kid's 23 months old now, which would make it 15-16 months old at the time it happened.