San Diego family suing Walt Disney World for alleged hot nacho cheese accident

Posted Friday, February 11, 2011 12:19 PM | Contributed by Jeff

The Harris family's San Diego attorney, Sean Cahill, said their 4-year-old son Isaiah accidently spilled scalding hot nacho cheese on his face at one of Walt Disney World’s restaurants and it left him with a blister so large it’s almost as big as his upper lip. The family is suing Disney World.

Read more from KGTV/San Diego.

Saturday, February 12, 2011 5:03 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

All that's well and good, and I don't even disagree, and we obviously came up with similar numbers.

Still doesn't explain why the parents gave their 4 year old son hot nacho cheese.


Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

+0
Saturday, February 12, 2011 5:11 PM
ApolloAndy's avatar

But we still don't know if the cheese was served at 140 or 160 or 180 degrees. I don't know how you can say anything about frivolity of the case without that information.


Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

+0
Saturday, February 12, 2011 5:34 PM

Exactly.

I've never suggested the parents don't share any of the blame for the incident, just that there isn't enough information to make a judgment call. It's entirely possible that the cheese at the top of the tray was cooler than cheese at the bottom of the tray, so the parents could have checked it and determined it was safe for the child. Of course that doesn't waive their responsibility. But if that cheese was 160+ degrees fresh out of the dispenser, I'd argue that's a liability for Disney and/or the manufacturer. In my mind, whether or not the parents checked before serving to their child has no bearing on whether or not Disney shares in the responsibility.

-Nate

+0
Saturday, February 12, 2011 5:37 PM
BullGuy's avatar

There was a guy eating some cheese in the park. Another guy ran up to him and took his cheese, and began running away. The first guy yells after him, "hey man, that's nacho cheese".


-Mark
Never Has Gravity Been So Uplifting.

+0
Saturday, February 12, 2011 10:21 PM

All I can say is this all sounds like just another money grab. Like the idiot that spilled coffee on himself from McDonald's. I'm surprised nobody has tried suing a park over that fake fog at Halloween events. I mean that stuff is dangerous right? It has been known to cause lung issues right?

+0
Saturday, February 12, 2011 10:55 PM
Raven-Phile's avatar

Really? Did you back read the other 2 pages at all?


R.I.P LeRoi Moore 9/7/61 - 8/19/2008
+0
Saturday, February 12, 2011 11:26 PM

Wait...are you trying to tell me that Stella Liebeck wasn't a man???


-Nate

Last edited by coasterdude318, Saturday, February 12, 2011 11:26 PM
+0
Sunday, February 13, 2011 9:29 AM
Tekwardo's avatar

LOL


Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

+0
Sunday, February 13, 2011 10:30 AM
OhioStater's avatar

The bottom line for me in cases like this breaks down the following way:

Could you convince me that in the McDonalds case that the company should pay for her medical bill? OK...I'll give you that...even though I would disagree with it, I can concede that she gets something.

Same in this case. Do I think it's a money grab? 100%. Why?

Because of what happened in the McD's case. She ended up with over $600,000. Why? For what? $600,000? That's a money grab. If she really was this honest, decent person, she would refuse the $600,000, and only take the $20,000 she initially wanted to cover her bills, etc. Maybe some court fees. But over half a million? And that's only a fraction of what she (well, mostly her lawyer) ended up fighting for.

What will this family "fight" for? Millions. It's a money grab, plain and simple, when a lawyer and their poor clients sue for a ludicrous sum of money that in no way pertains to the "suffering" that they had to endure.

That's what makes these cases disgusting. Six Flags girl? Yes, she should get millions. She should get her own park.

Nacho Cheese boy and McDonalds lady? Pay their hospital bill and be done with it. Free Nachos for life.

Seinfeld did these cases best when Kramer got lifetime Lattes. That is about the appropriate reward someone should get.

When you support these cases, you are giving ascent to the awarding of ridiculous amounts of money to people who are not entitled to it, do not deserve it, all because ambulance-chasing lawyers can't wait to feed their wallets.

+0
Sunday, February 13, 2011 4:45 PM

Raven-Phile said:
Really? Did you back read the other 2 pages at all?

No, didn't really want to waste my time when all this story is about money.

And, who really cares if it was a man or woman that spilled coffee on themselves at McDonald's. In the end that person got lots of money for it.

+0
Sunday, February 13, 2011 5:53 PM

Lucky the parents did not order coffee and the kid tried to drink that.....


+0
Sunday, February 13, 2011 6:22 PM
Vater's avatar

Lord Gonchar said:

maXairMike said:
Not quite sure what the point of this is, considering this is a real case, brought by real people against Disney.

Someone mentioned those cases as silly lawsuits and then deleted the post when the mistake was pointed out.

So was the post 'undeleted'? Because it's there, right above mine.

+0
Sunday, February 13, 2011 11:46 PM

Very odd...It did get 'undeleted' I guess. It is there now, but definitely wasn't when Gonch and I made our posts.


Original BlueStreak64

+0
Monday, February 14, 2011 6:29 AM

OhioStater said:
She ended up with over $600,000. Why?

Because a smaller amount may not have motivated McDonald's to change their policies. After all, the numerous complaints from both customers and experts warning McDonald's that their coffee was far too hot did not motivate the company. The $600,000 settlement and ensuing media attention did. In short, the system worked.


Brandon | Facebook

+0
Monday, February 14, 2011 8:10 AM
matt.'s avatar

ApolloAndy said:
But we still don't know if the cheese was served at 140 or 160 or 180 degrees. I don't know how you can say anything about frivolity of the case without that information.

You mean to tell me there are food safety regulations out there which are designed to prevent this sort of thing, and without knowing at what temperature the cheese was, there's no way to know what really happened here?

Sorry, that doesn't fit the preformed narrative I have in my head about the country being overrun by frivolous lawsuits so yeah...definite cash grab.

+0
Monday, February 14, 2011 8:40 AM

Did anyone actually take a look at the picture of the kid? If that is a result from him taking a bite of the nachos, Disney is toast. I'm thinking an out-of-court settlement is in order.

+0
Monday, February 14, 2011 8:46 AM

Muncie All Star said:
Did anyone actually take a look at the picture of the kid? If that is a result from him taking a bite of the nachos...

Did you happen to read the article? If you had, you'd have read that the kid spilled nachos on his face. In other words, he was doing it wrong. But most importantly, his parents were doing it wrong.

That said, I think it goes without saying that Disney is going to settle.


Brandon | Facebook

+0
Monday, February 14, 2011 9:44 AM
Tekwardo's avatar

Just a couple things:

But if that cheese was 160+ degrees fresh out of the dispenser, I'd argue that's a liability for Disney and/or the manufacturer.

If the temperature was over what the manufacturer and health department states it should be set at, I'd agree, and you and Andy are correct, we don't know that. Having said that, if the cheese was at 160*, and that's what it's supposed to be set at in order to be served safely, I don't agree, to an extent. In the end, though, if the cheese is supposed to be served at a temp up to 160*, and it was, the outcome likely wouldn't have been different than if it was higher, because in either case it would burn the child.

Because of what happened in the McD's case...$600,000? That's a money grab. If she really was this honest, decent person, she would refuse the $600,000, and only take the $20,000 she initially wanted to cover her bills, etc. Maybe some court fees. But over half a million?

I'm sorry, but her honesty and decency isn't measured by the fact that she won $600,000. She wanted her medical bills paid for. They refused. So in order for her to get compensation that she should have gotten, she then had to go get a lawyer, which also cost money. $600,000, in the grand scheme of things, really isn't a lot, and after taxes, fees, and medical bills, its not like she lived some extravagant lifestyle on what she had left out of that.

Because a smaller amount may not have motivated McDonald's to change their policies. After all, the numerous complaints from both customers and experts warning McDonald's that their coffee was far too hot did not motivate the company.

Exactly. While I still think she was responsible for her injuries by stupidly putting a hot cup of coffee between her legs in a car, McD's is culpable because they didn't heed the warnings they received. Thats basically a $600,000 fine, and it got them to change their policy, as they should have.

Did anyone actually take a look at the picture of the kid? If that is a result from him taking a bite of the nachos, Disney is toast.

Disney isn't toast. They deal with this kind of crap all of the time. This is a case of some parents that gave their child food that he shouldn't have been responsible for. If it comes out that Disney kept the cheese too hot, then they bare some responsibility. Likely, though, they'll not be stubborn like McDonald's and they'll make sure to comply with the correct temp in the future, while setting out of court with some parents who were irresponsible with their child.


Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

+0
Monday, February 14, 2011 9:49 AM

Regardless, you shouldn't be handed food that is going to scald you. I'm not a health inspector, but good grief, do you really need nacho cheese to be so hot that you have to let it cool down before you eat it? There must be an appropriate level of cheese temperature that would keep out any food borne bacteria and not cause burns. I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask for damages that amount to the doctor bills. I would expect any food I order to be served at an appropriate temperature. Even if I spill it, I shouldn't expect to be scalded like that child.

+0
Monday, February 14, 2011 9:57 AM

Muncie All Star said:
I'm not a health inspector, but good grief, do you really need nacho cheese to be so hot that you have to let it cool down before you eat it?

As with most food, yes. Like chicken. Or beef. Or, apparently, cheese.

I would expect any food I order to be served at an appropriate temperature.

And I would expect a parent to not hand their 4 year old kid something so hot.


Brandon | Facebook

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...