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

Perhaps. But I'm not sure one's judgment about the frivolity of a lawsuit constitutes a violation of morality...at least not one comparable to a civil rights violation.

In other words, if the evidence proves an existing law was broken, I don't think it's a juror's right to throw out the case simply because they think the circumstances surrounding it were stupid.

Exactly. When serving on a jury, you're not there to discuss whether or not a law is moral or not, you're there to discuss if a law was broken. Simply dissenting because you don't agree with the stated law, in a civil case such as this, doesn't even mean that the plaintiff won't win, either.

I agree with you there, and I'm probably overextending the concept of morality like Carrie mentioned.

Ugh.

I would hate the feeling of being in such a "hands are tied" situation.

All this talk of nacho cheese is making me hungry...

Somewhat on topic, I will say my favorite disclaimer of all time was a few years ago at Carowinds. The food counter locations that had hot beverages available all had fairly large signs stating: "Caution: Hot beverages are hot."

Thought of this thread when I saw this:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19150_6-famous-frivolous-lawsuit-stories-that-are-total-b.s..html

It is really sad to know that you can sue just about anyone for anything nowadays... It is ridiculous.

Isn't Disney suppose to be the happiest place on earth?

The food was too hot to be safely consumed. If I had had third-degree burns to my tongue from cheese sauce served to me from any business, I just might think about a civil case as well. Even if this boy was not being watched by his parents, his mouth would probably have gotten burned anyways. I think it is unreasonable to expect a parent to check the temperature of every food item served to their child, and therefore, in my opinion, Disney is at least partially at fault here.

LostKause said:
I think it is unreasonable to expect a parent to check the temperature of every food item served to their child, and therefore, in my opinion, Disney is at least partially at fault here.

With all due respect, paying attention to what your kid puts in their mouth is pretty much the first rule of parenting.

True, Gonch, and that is a very good counterpoint, but I somehow would trust that Disney wouldn't serve hot magma to their customers. :p Some parents might just trust that the magma was of a reasonable temperature for their child to consume.

Then again, maybe there is a good reason here somewhere that God hasn't granted me a child, yet. :D

The food was too hot to be safely consumed.

But that doesn't mean Disney is at fault...especially if Disney had the temp set at a level acceptable by health inspector standards.

Disney is at least partially at fault here.

There is nothing to suggest that. As was stated early in this thread, in order to be edible the nacho cheese is supposed to be kept at a temperature of around 140-160 degrees. It doesn't take that long to cause burns at those temperatures. This kid shouldn't have had hot nacho cheese sitting in front of him, at which point, because he's a kid, he wouldn't have grabbed it when he fell, and it wouldn't have spilled on his face.

That doesn't make Disney at fault if they were doing what they were legally obligated to do, which is serve food that is required to be at a certain temperature.

If they were serving molten lava poured over tortilla chips, I'd expect to hear that many more people were similarly burned that day.

Food served at 160 degrees is going to be steaming at least. Even if you don't know the exact temperature, shouldn't a parent assume that liquid cheese like substance is going to be hot and instruct the child accordingly? Or were they too busy chowing down themselves to worry about what the boy was doing? I've seen way too many people abdicate their parental duties when they have a plate of food in front of them.

I'm dying to know all the things Disney changed because of safety issues. What did the park look like from a safety standpoint way back when? Could kids make their own fries? :)

On the subject of frivolous lawsuits, usually there is some detail that justifies the suit. Like, was the cheese dispenser at child level? Are there mini stairs leading to the dispenser table? Is there a picture on the cheese dispenser of a kid pouring cheese?

Remember, this family is holding up their entire family for intense scrutiny as they embark on this suit: Their family's recent arrest records, recent other child injuries, other law suits, comments from friends and neighbors about their parenting skills, comments from friends and neighbors about their wanting to sue for profit, comments from teachers about whether they're fit parents. Comments from family members about law suit discussions they've had. It's going to be an absolute self-inflicted nightmare for them.

Bill

Not really. They likely expect a settlement. Their lawyer likely expects one too. Besides Disney is the defendant. The plantifs aren't the ones on trial so unless they're constantly suing people the rest of that stuff wouldn't be allowed.

Beg to differ, but the defendant has the right to any and all pertinant (relevant) information about the plaintiff. It's called investigation and discovery and it's done all the time.

I think you guys are overvaluing the price of dignity in today's society.

The question is how much is that sort of scrutiny worth? For many, many people (not saying it's the case here) the cost of their dignity is easily covered by the lawsuit.

For many, many people the cost of their dignity is easily covered by a $20 Olive Garden gift card.

Heck, some people will give up their dignity for free if they think other people will watch.

*COUGH* Jersey Shore

Dutchman said:
Beg to differ, but the defendant has the right to any and all pertinant (relevant) information about the plaintiff. It's called investigation and discovery and it's done all the time.

...unless they're constantly suing people...

Seems like I covered that. Having said that, the child is a victim. There is nothing to suggest criminally negligent parenting here. While I think the parents are responsible, I don't think they were negligent and while the Lawyer Mice & Princess Mice may look into that (I doubt it, I bet they settle), much of that stuff isn't going to be useful. Unless, like I said, there is a pattern. Not many lawyers are going to want to go to court and paint the parents in a terrible light unless there is overwhelming evidence that they're terrible parents. Disney will defend themselves if this ever goes to a court room.

Remember, the plantiff carries the burden of proof that Disney was negligent in serving them too hot cheese. Disney will be concerned with countering that they did not, I doubt that they'll be trying to convince a court that these are bad parents.