El sitio web y las publicaciones en redes sociales de Top Class Actions utilizan enlaces de afiliados. Si realiza una compra utilizando
dichos enlaces, es posible que recibamos una comisión, pero no supondrá ningún cargo adicional para usted.
Por favor, revise nuestra Divulgación de Enlaces de Afiliados para más información.
McNugget burns overview:
- Who: McDonald’s and Upchurch Foods were found liable for burns on the 4-year-old child of Florida residents Philana Holmes and Humberto Caraballo.
- Why: McDonald’s was deemed to have served a six-piece Chicken McNugget Happy Meal that was dangerously hot.
- Where: The Happy Meal was served by a McDonald’s franchise in Tamarac, Florida, and the case took place in Broward County court.
A jury found McDonald’s and franchisee Upchurch Foods liable for second-degree burns to a 4-year-old from Chicken McNuggets.
The 4-year-old child of plaintiffs Philana Holmes and Humberto Caraballo received a hot six-piece Chicken McNugget Happy Meal in 2019 from the McDonald’s in Tamarac, Florida. Shortly after the Happy Meal was passed to the child in the backseat, the child began screaming.
After pulling over, the parents found that the Chicken McNugget had fallen and created a severe burn on the child’s leg, which had to be treated at a hospital emergency room.
“After a closer inspection revealed that the burn was welting and turning deep red, she took her daughter to the emergency room,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers from Fischer Redavid PLLC wrote. “Doctors there treated her for a serious second-degree burn injury.”
The Broward County, Florida, jury found that the negligence of Upchurch Foods Inc. was what led to the injuries to the plaintiffs’ child. The jury also found that Upchurch Foods did not provide reasonable instructions, either written or verbally, about the foreseeable risks from the hot Chicken McNuggets, which was the legal cause for the injury.
Plaintiffs’ attorney compares McDonald’s verdict to result of coffee burn case
Attorneys for the plaintiff said that the case “draws unavoidable parallels to Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, which most people call the McDonald’s Hot Coffee Lawsuit.” That case set a precedent on the safe handling of hot food from a fast food restaurant and that serving food that was too hot can be negligent, the attorneys stated.
In that case, McDonald’s was ordered to pay $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages.
McDonald’s asked a court last year to dismiss a class action lawsuit because it claimed that the “forever chemicals’ that it used in grease-resistant packaging are safe and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Have you ever received food that was too hot to consume from a restaurant? Let us know in the comments.
Más información sobre demandas colectivas y acuerdos extrajudiciales:
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source topclassactions.com ’
