Hot Nacho lawsuit

Skeptical Greg said:
But in the article it claims that there will be 'permanent scaring', which doesn't always happen in 2nd degree burns.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm. Sounds like the plaintiff's team has retained the services of a medical, expert witness.
How else would they know, the scars will be permanent..
Click to expand...
It sounds like they contacted an 'expert witness', but the article doesn't go into any details. Maybe they talked to a burn specialist, or maybe they just talked to the nurse down at their local walk-in medical clinic. (I'm not sure what the exact rules are for lawsuits, but I assume its possible to claim just about anything; whether the claims are accurate is something that the courts ultimately decide.)
 
Kid probably fell off the "wobbly" chair from the shock of drinking hot nacho cheese. Parents switched the timeline to cash in. Or not.

BTW, the giant sticker at the base of that cheese machine is where it describes the effects of molten processed cheese food on the skin.

Feel way bad for the kid regardless.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
Also, I cynically suspect the child seized the cup and attempted to drink from it, and the parents then decided to invent a story of "splashing" and wobbling chairs and grassy knolls in an effort to cash in from Disney and Big Nacho.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything cynical about it, that scenario seems far more consistent with the picture of the injury than the one the parents concocted. Kid made a stupid mistake (he is a kid, after all), Disney will settle, not big news. To be honest, Disney may be able to (if they really wanted to) deflect the blame onto the manufacturer/distributor of the nacho cheese maker and make a case that operating the machine within the designed limits can still cause bodily harm to a consumer. I don't believe it's Disney's responsibility to test these things, but I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
excaza said:
Disney will settle, not big news.
Click to expand...

Michael and Maria Harris filed the lawsuit in San Diego federal court Wednesday after months of unsuccessfully trying to resolve the case out of court, said the couple’s attorney, Sean Cahill.
Click to expand...

They can't seem to reach an agreement, thus lawsuit.

-Maus
 
excaza said:
I don't think there's anything cynical about it, that scenario seems far more consistent with the picture of the injury than the one the parents concocted. Kid made a stupid mistake (he is a kid, after all), Disney will settle, not big news. To be honest, Disney may be able to (if they really wanted to) deflect the blame onto the manufacturer/distributor of the nacho cheese maker and make a case that operating the machine within the designed limits can still cause bodily harm to a consumer. I don't believe it's Disney's responsibility to test these things, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

My really cynical suspicion is that the kid received the burns at home, and the parents arranged the Disney trip and nacho "accident" to make a little profit off it. But I'm sure Disney thought to question witnesses and investigate CC footage to see if the kid came in with bandages on to begin with.

If I were Disney, I'd secretly photograph and film everyone in the park at all times, especially photographing people in the parking lot to see who had injuries and things before they suspected they were being watched. But I'm not only cynical but paranoid, and wouldn't run a business connected with children for all the tea in Bulgaria. Those things are ticking time bombs of potential litigiousness, and juries are notoriously stupid.
 
Maus said:
They can't seem to reach an agreement, thus lawsuit.

-Maus
Click to expand...

Meh, more than likely the parents are overblowing the 'severe emotional distress' and 'permanent scarring' and demanding more money than they'll ever get.

Slightly on that topic though, it's been almost a year, where are the images of this child's 'permanent' injuries?

TragicMonkey said:
My really cynical suspicion is that the kid received the burns at home, and the parents arranged the Disney trip and nacho "accident" to make a little profit off it. But I'm sure Disney thought to question witnesses and investigate CC footage to see if the kid came in with bandages on to begin with.
Click to expand...
:D

If I were Disney, I'd secretly photograph and film everyone in the park at all times, especially photographing people in the parking lot to see who had injuries and things before they suspected they were being watched.
Click to expand...

What makes you think they don't? ;)
 
sadhatter said:
If anyone really believed that your average person would have no problem sticking their johnson, or face into hot food. But strangely i think you would only find a small number of sexual fetishists willing to try the experiment.
Click to expand...

When I make tea I can drink it pretty much right when it's done steeping. I bring my water up to just before a rolling boil, steep for ~3 minutes. I'm sure I'd get burned if I hurled it on myself, but I can still drink it. Would never stick my wang or my face in it though. :p
 
excaza said:
Meh, more than likely the parents are overblowing the 'severe emotional distress' and 'permanent scarring' and demanding more money than they'll ever get.
Click to expand...

I usually read "We are unable to reach a settlement" as "They are not paying us enough to retire on."

-Maus
 
Babbylonian said:
I would think that some people would actually evacuate him. It seems more like a failure of compassion on the part of the other customers there than of Disney's evacuation procedure.
Click to expand...

Oh, silly child. Disney would not allow it, for fear of one of the other customers stumbling him, or hurting him in some way.

It's sad it's come to having to sign a pre-release form that you must agree to sit there for awhile waiting for government emergency people (ahh, relief from a lawsuit for your company...maybe) or for the ride to be fixed so you get moving again.

A world of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers, shall not perish from this Earth.


I'm still waiting for the day for a lawsuit against an amusement park because someone in their iron lung cannot be pushed onto a roller coaster.
 
Last edited:
A Laughing Baby said:
The parents should have supervised their child and stopped him from reaching out for an object to grab on to when he fell? Really?
Click to expand...

Why can't the company sue the parents for not taking adequate supervision of their child, which lead to the child stumbling, causing the injury, and thus causing a loss of money to the company?

Turn it about!
 
sadhatter said:
Enlighten me as to why my argument is stupid. To me the hot food lawsuits always involve the most sensitive places on the human body and this wierd type of argument from ignorance that " Food shouldn't be hot enough to hurt.". If anyone really believed that your average person would have no problem sticking their johnson, or face into hot food. But strangely i think you would only find a small number of sexual fetishists willing to try the experiment.

So please, explain to me how that is a silly argument when people are constantly parroting " food shouldn't be that hot. ". To me it simply shows how people are using argumentum ad anus, where people will say anything to win an argument, usually pulled from an unpleasant orifice.
Click to expand...

It's a stupid argument because there are plenty of things that I am willing to touch with my hands or other body parts that I am not willing to put my penis in/on.
 
excaza said:
When I make tea I can drink it pretty much right when it's done steeping. I bring my water up to just before a rolling boil, steep for ~3 minutes. I'm sure I'd get burned if I hurled it on myself, but I can still drink it. Would never stick my wang or my face in it though. :p
Click to expand...

Exactly, and because of this you would take appropriate caution to make sure said wang, and said face do not come into contact with the tea. Should contact happen it is not your fault for making the tea too hot, it is simply the nature of tea.
 
ZirconBlue said:
It's a stupid argument because there are plenty of things that I am willing to touch with my hands or other body parts that I am not willing to put my penis in/on.
Click to expand...

And? We are talking about damage to sensitive areas, not to the hands or other toughened areas. I still fail to see where the argument fails.

If we were talking about nacho cheese that burned the callous off of a woodworkers hands, then we would have a different story here. But we are not, we are talking face in this case, and genetalia in the hot coffee suit. So your hands claim is nothing more than a failed attempt to justify hand waving away the simple fact that everyone really knows that many foods are served over edible temparature, and due to this can and do cause damage to sensitive areas.
 
sadhatter said:
And? We are talking about damage to sensitive areas, not to the hands or other toughened areas. I still fail to see where the argument fails.

If we were talking about nacho cheese that burned the callous off of a woodworkers hands, then we would have a different story here. But we are not, we are talking face in this case, and genetalia in the hot coffee suit. So your hands claim is nothing more than a failed attempt to justify hand waving away the simple fact that everyone really knows that many foods are served over edible temparature, and due to this can and do cause damage to sensitive areas.
Click to expand...

Are you defining "sensitive areas" as anywhere but the palms of your hands? Because any of my skin that is regularly exposed in public is pretty tough. Especially when compared to genitalia.

Regardless, when I go into a restaurant, I don't expect any of my "sensitive areas" to come into contact with scalding hot nacho cheese. Especially if I didn't order nachos. (And there are a range of temperatures between "edible" and "likely to cause 3rd degree burns". Despite handling thousands of pizzas right out of the oven, I've never gotten serious burns from any pizza, even if it is initially too hot to eat.)

You've basically staked out a position that a restaurant is never, in any way responsible when people sustain serious burns on their premises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom