McDonald’s is once again facing a lawsuit related to a hot beverage incident, this time at a San Francisco branch.
The plaintiff, Mable Childress, claims the restaurant served her an excessively hot cup of coffee with an improperly attached lid.
She claims it led to severe burns when she attempted to drink it.
In the lawsuit filed last week, Childress claims to be suffering from physical pain, emotional distress, and other damages.
She attributed the injuries to the restaurant’s negligence.
Childress also claims restaurant employees refused assistance when the accident occurred, a claim that McDonald’s strongly denies.
Peter Ou, the franchise owner, said: “We take every customer complaint seriously and when Childress reported her experience to us later that day, our employees and management team spoke to her within a few minutes and offered assistance.
“My restaurants have strict food safety protocols in place, including training crew to ensure lids on hot beverages are secure.”
He said the company is “reviewing this new legal claim in detail.”
This case resembles the infamous McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit from several decades ago, where a woman sustained third-degree burns after spilling coffee on her lap.
The jury in 1992 sided with her argument that the coffee was unreasonably hot, as it was reportedly 30 to 40 degrees hotter than coffee served by other companies.
Initially awarded nearly $3 million, the plaintiff settled for approximately $480,000 after an appeal.
Need Career Advice? Get employment skills advice at all levels of your career
Earlier this year, McDonald’s found itself liable in another case involving hot food.
A Florida jury awarded a family $800,000 in a civil lawsuit against McDonald’s and one of its franchisees after hot chicken nuggets burned a toddler.
The jury held franchise owner Upchurch Foods responsible for failing to adequately warn or provide reasonable instructions to employees at a Miami-area location.
It’s regarding the potential harm posed by the hot McNuggets served.
McDonald’s, however, contested the verdict, calling it an “unfortunate incident.”
Its defense said it had no control over the injuries and damages incurred.