Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678
Results 106 to 110 of 110
  1. #106

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    920

    Re: Parents sue Disney, claim son suffered 'Severe Burns' from his Nacho Cheese

    Quote Originally Posted by RiversOfAmerica View Post
    Good point. It's probably better phrased that it doesn't in and of itself prove negligence or liability.

    Also a good point.

    I concur. Simply saying "the chair is wobbly" isn't sufficient. It needs to be demonstrated that the wobble in question is sufficient to cause neglicence, or at least be a primary contributor of negligence. A chair simply being "wobbly" doesn't in and of itself demonstrate negligence.
    Almost. The question is whether a reasonable parent supervising his/her child would expect such. This is important, because a 4 year old isnt' capable of discerning reasonable safety. Otherwise, the railing around Rivers of America would need to be 6 feet high, since many 4 year olds are able to climb the existing fences. Obviously, a 36" high fence is reasonable, and it wouldn't be negligence if a child climbed the fence and fell into the river.

    You hit the nail on the head. It needs to be a foreseeable likelihood. Unless something unique comes out in discovery, the threshold of foreseeable likelihood will be difficult for the plaintiffs to establish.

    That simply isn't so. Simply because a food product CAN cause a burn, that doesn't equate to de facto negligence on a part of the one servince the food. What it comes down to is what the expectations are of a reasonable food consumer. If a parent orders a glass of hot tea for his 4 year old and doesn't supervise his/her child, then it's likely that the 4 year old will burn him/herself. The same goes with nacho cheese. If a parent orders a plate of nacho cheese for his 4 year old, and doesn't supervise the 4 year old, then it's likely that the 4 year old will burn himself on the cheese. In both of these cases however, a discerning adult is able to discern how to handle the food for consumption, and a reasonable adult would not burn himself on these foods. Hence, the mere fact that a food product can cause a burn does not in and of itself make the server liable for the food's ability to burn.
    We're missing each other a lot because of a fine distinction. I'm only addressing the complaint. I will address Disney's allegations when they file their answer.

    Second, even if the parent's were negligent in some fashion, that doesn't mean Disney wasn't also (and vice versa). When the answer gets filed, we'll see some type of "but the parents were negligent too" type of argument.

    To win, you can't just prove negligence. You have to show the negligence was a direct cause of the injury.

    We will find out. I'm only addressing whether Disney is negligent, not liable. I can't say whether they're liable until Disney makes their allegations regarding the parents' actions.
    This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.

  2. #107

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    920

    Re: Parents sue Disney, claim son suffered 'Severe Burns' from his Nacho Cheese

    Quote Originally Posted by RiversOfAmerica View Post

    That simply isn't so. Simply because a food product CAN cause a burn, that doesn't equate to de facto negligence on a part of the one servince the food. What it comes down to is what the expectations are of a reasonable food consumer. If a parent orders a glass of hot tea for his 4 year old and doesn't supervise his/her child, then it's likely that the 4 year old will burn him/herself. The same goes with nacho cheese. If a parent orders a plate of nacho cheese for his 4 year old, and doesn't supervise the 4 year old, then it's likely that the 4 year old will burn himself on the cheese. In both of these cases however, a discerning adult is able to discern how to handle the food for consumption, and a reasonable adult would not burn himself on these foods. Hence, the mere fact that a food product can cause a burn does not in and of itself make the server liable for the food's ability to burn.
    I wanted to make a small point here. It is possible for Disney to be negligent even if following industry standards if the entire industry is negligent. Take the following extreme example:

    Suppose the food industry (including Disney) serves nacho cheese at 800 degrees. The entire food industry says, "yep, 800 degrees is perfectly acceptable!" If a child or any other patron burns themselves on the cheese and the patron claims the cheese was too hot, Disney will claim "but we acted according to standards." The courts can still come in and say "The industry standards are absurd. 800 degrees is too much. Disney, you're negligent for thinking 800 degrees is okay. The food industry must now serve nacho cheese at 140 degrees."


    Back to reality - It's possible Disney acted according to protocol but was still negligent. It just won't be an insane number like 800 degrees. Maybe the industry serves cheese too hot by 10 degrees. It's a totally possible situation. Maybe unlikely to unfold, but absolutely possible.

    Again, I am not addressing the parents' negligence or Disney's liability until Disney files their answer. Disney can be 100% negligent but not liable if the parents did something really crazy/negligent. The question isn't really negligence, its whose negligence caused the injury.
    This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.

  3. #108

    • DLR Cast Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central OC (CA)
    Posts
    1,259

    Re: Parents sue Disney, claim son suffered 'Severe Burns' from his Nacho Cheese

    Quote Originally Posted by leopardchucks View Post
    Has it even been established that parents purchased the cheese for the toddler? Not that it makes much difference in the case, but if it was stated clearly that maybe Mommy purchased it for herself and the wobbly chair caused the child to grab the table/tray/whatever to steady himself, then all this tossing of the parents under the bus might stop.
    You make a good point. However, in and of itself, whether the cheese was purchased for the child's consumption, or for someone else's consumption, that wouldn't in and of itself shift liability from the plaintiff to the defendant. Take for example, if an adult bought, say, a cup of coffee, and through some mishap, the coffee spilled on a child and caused scalds or burns. In that case, whom the coffee was purchased for does not shift liability. Likewise, whom the nachos were purchased for does not, in and of itself, shift liability to the defendant. Of course, the details of that are a matter left for discovery as noted earlier, which may or may not be a game changer.

  4. #109

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    920

    Re: Parents sue Disney, claim son suffered 'Severe Burns' from his Nacho Cheese

    ^Bingo. "Bystanders" are foreseeable for most product liability issues.
    This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.

  5. #110

    • is poppin' tags
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    1,742

    Re: Parents sue Disney, claim son suffered 'Severe Burns' from his Nacho Cheese

    Quote Originally Posted by RiversOfAmerica View Post
    You make a good point. However, in and of itself, whether the cheese was purchased for the child's consumption, or for someone else's consumption, that wouldn't in and of itself shift liability from the plaintiff to the defendant. Take for example, if an adult bought, say, a cup of coffee, and through some mishap, the coffee spilled on a child and caused scalds or burns. In that case, whom the coffee was purchased for does not shift liability. Likewise, whom the nachos were purchased for does not, in and of itself, shift liability to the defendant. Of course, the details of that are a matter left for discovery as noted earlier, which may or may not be a game changer.
    I only made that point to show some folks that they shouldn't be so quick to judge the parents and say "Who would serve their child hot cheese?!" and "Why didn't they test it first?!". I was only pointing out that it has never been established that the food was purchased for the child to consume, which would make those qeries irrelevent.
    I agree that it wouldn't change the outcome regarding liability in this situation. I believed I prefaced my statement with something of that nature. I was just trying to reduce the shrill parent-hating. THANKFULLY, there doesn't seem to be much around anymore.


    P.S. Why don't I see you guys in the Debate Lounge? You'd fit right in! If you haven't done so, going GOLD is sooooo worth it!
    Last edited by leopardchucks; 06-07-2011 at 06:00 AM. Reason: shameless plug for going gold
    For those of you that are curious about my wedding:
    http://www.rocknrollbride.com/2011/0...heather-tyler/





Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •