To save you a click, a hot meal slid off the tray table onto the girls lap.
“In the more than a year and a half since she was burned, the girl has suffered lasting effects ranging from scarring and discoloration to neurological deficits, mental anguish, humiliation, and "the loss of ability to enjoy her life," according to documents.”
Sounds awful, reminds me of the elderly woman and the McDonald’s coffee that melted her skin.
McDonalds lawsuit was a settlement, so there is no legal precedent created by the case. That being said I still think they will win. Very easy to prove the food was served in an unsafe condition
Edit: The comment I responded to was edited to remove the remark about precedent
You're both right:
>The jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident. They awarded Liebeck a net $160,000[3] in compensatory damages to cover medical expenses, and $2.7 million (equivalent to $5,300,000 in 2022) in punitive damages, the equivalent of two days of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to three times the amount of the compensatory damages, totalling $640,000.
> The parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.[4
Read to the end of the trial section. Both parties successfully appealed, meaning the original ruling is invalid. The parties then settled out of court for an undisclosed amount under the condition the plaintiff sign an NDA. This case ended in a settlement exactly as I said, and because the ruling was appealed it cannot be used as precedent.
That's completely leaving out the fact that this was a civil trial originally decided by a jury, meaning any precedent is suggestive at best and can only be applied to deciding damages. It cannot be used as precedent to find the defendant guilty.
The person I originally responded to edited it out of their comment 5 hours ago. The last line was saying he hoped the McDonald's lawsuit would be enough precedent for the family to win.
Yea, language in the complaint is almost meaningless. From the article it looks like they’re only suing for $75,000. If that’s true this injury isn’t remotely close to the level of burns in the famous McDonalds coffee case.
The woman in the McDonalds case was actually only attempting to recoup the costs for her medical care and recovery. People just think she was an evil greedy scumbag who tried to get rich off a petty lawsuit, because McDonalds wants people to think that. She was awarded an amount miles above what she was ever asking for.
rustic grandiose shaggy cheerful sparkle square upbeat axiomatic sugar shrill
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because their own food is on their tray table? There isn't really room for multiple meals on a tray table. Flying with toddlers is so difficult, so little room to maneuver anything around.
To save you a click, a hot meal slid off the tray table onto the girls lap. “In the more than a year and a half since she was burned, the girl has suffered lasting effects ranging from scarring and discoloration to neurological deficits, mental anguish, humiliation, and "the loss of ability to enjoy her life," according to documents.” Sounds awful, reminds me of the elderly woman and the McDonald’s coffee that melted her skin.
McDonalds lawsuit was a settlement, so there is no legal precedent created by the case. That being said I still think they will win. Very easy to prove the food was served in an unsafe condition Edit: The comment I responded to was edited to remove the remark about precedent
No it wasn't. It went to trial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
You're both right: >The jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident. They awarded Liebeck a net $160,000[3] in compensatory damages to cover medical expenses, and $2.7 million (equivalent to $5,300,000 in 2022) in punitive damages, the equivalent of two days of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to three times the amount of the compensatory damages, totalling $640,000. > The parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.[4
Read to the end of the trial section. Both parties successfully appealed, meaning the original ruling is invalid. The parties then settled out of court for an undisclosed amount under the condition the plaintiff sign an NDA. This case ended in a settlement exactly as I said, and because the ruling was appealed it cannot be used as precedent. That's completely leaving out the fact that this was a civil trial originally decided by a jury, meaning any precedent is suggestive at best and can only be applied to deciding damages. It cannot be used as precedent to find the defendant guilty.
No one is even talking about precedents except you...
The person I originally responded to edited it out of their comment 5 hours ago. The last line was saying he hoped the McDonald's lawsuit would be enough precedent for the family to win.
Oh, yeah people don’t understand precedent at all
They have to put that language in the lawsuit to show an injury and try to increase the value. Often the scar isn’t even visible.
Yea, language in the complaint is almost meaningless. From the article it looks like they’re only suing for $75,000. If that’s true this injury isn’t remotely close to the level of burns in the famous McDonalds coffee case.
The woman in the McDonalds case was actually only attempting to recoup the costs for her medical care and recovery. People just think she was an evil greedy scumbag who tried to get rich off a petty lawsuit, because McDonalds wants people to think that. She was awarded an amount miles above what she was ever asking for.
The McDonald's PR machine really pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.
She only asking for $20k and the jury awarded her much more in punitive damages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
Neurological deficits???
It’s not even that much they want, 75k is very low imo
Doubt that's the actual number. Probably just a statutory minimum.
It's the jurisdictional threshold for federal court.
If the turbulence is bad, that tray is useless. So the question is how hot is the food?
Yeah to be fair ive definitely had plane food before that was insanely hot to bite into.
Last time I had hot food on a plane, I was a kid lol. I miss that luxury and sad they don’t do it on domestic
The food gets loaded on planes like a frozen brick so they actually warm the food up to be pretty hot
They still do hot meals on flights? Damn, def not in the cheap seats.
rustic grandiose shaggy cheerful sparkle square upbeat axiomatic sugar shrill *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
On my international flights in the cheap seats, I still get hot meals.
Covid era food boxes are mostly gone now.
My first thought was "how can someone get burned by a stroopwafel?"
Seriously though if you overheat one of those things it's like napalm! Its burning goo sticks to your skin like crazy glue! 😉
Probably not for long if the lawsuit is successful.
Not for long if everyone starts to sue
Wrong sub. Maybe delta or an airplane subreddit?
The article says NEWARK, NJ… for a flight coming to EWR. It isn’t the wrong sub
How does an event on a flight hundreds of miles away and 34,000 feet in the air have anything to do with the city. It didn't happen here.
Where did the plane that the incident occurred in land?
[удалено]
Because their own food is on their tray table? There isn't really room for multiple meals on a tray table. Flying with toddlers is so difficult, so little room to maneuver anything around.
cover psychotic ghost alive observation water puzzled groovy crime lock *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
anyone else have an ad for united literally right below this post? lmao
What race were the pilots? What