Woman sues over spilled McDonald's ho...

Woman sues over spilled McDonald's hot chocolate

There are 41 comments on the CLTV - Chicago Land's TV story from Aug 25, 2010, titled Woman sues over spilled McDonald's hot chocolate. In it, CLTV - Chicago Land's TV reports that:

COOK COUNTY, Ill. - Vicki LaRocco of Northlake is suing McDonald's, claiming her daughter was seriously burned last year when a hot chocolate she ordered spilled and seriously burned her leg.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CLTV - Chicago Land's TV.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Jimmy

New York, NY

#1 Aug 26, 2010
You stupid biznich, that's why they call it HOT chocolate. You're an idiot.

“Fightin Crazies in Topix”

Since: May 10

since 2010

#3 Aug 26, 2010
Jimmy wrote:
You stupid biznich, that's why they call it HOT chocolate. You're an idiot.
Another one looking to win the "lottery!"
RUKIDDNME

Elmwood Park, IL

#4 Aug 29, 2010
No child should be handed HOT Chocolate in a car, this woman obviously never thought twice on what the consequences are when HOT CHOCOLATE is handed to a child in a moving vehicle, common sense people come on??!!! oh, the lid was not secured tightly enough, yea yea, heard that story a million times. Just face it lady, you spilled the hot chocolate on your own child, it was your fault not the fault of McDonalds.
Seymore

Chicago, IL

#5 Aug 30, 2010
RUKIDDNME wrote:
No child should be handed HOT Chocolate in a car, this woman obviously never thought twice on what the consequences are when HOT CHOCOLATE is handed to a child in a moving vehicle, common sense people come on??!!! oh, the lid was not secured tightly enough, yea yea, heard that story a million times. Just face it lady, you spilled the hot chocolate on your own child, it was your fault not the fault of McDonalds.
Another moron who thinks he is judge and jury.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#6 Aug 30, 2010
It's already been addressed, but I'd just like to reiterate that there are two issues here:
1. Ms. LaRocco is not concerned for her child's welfare or the welfare of anyone else who could suffer the same fate - she is simply looking for a payout. Beverage containers already display warnings that the contents may be hot, so there's nothing more that can be done and LaRocco knows this. She's looking for money, plain and simple.
2. Ms. LaRocco is more concerned about receiving a payout and placing blame on McDonald's than she is about accepting that she displayed poor decision-making and parenting skills in this situation. She claims, "...the lid of the cup was improperly secured and the beverage spilled onto her daughter...", to which I must ask - Did she not check the lid prior to handing the beverage to the child? Anyone who has ever been handed a beverage in a fast-food style establishment has had the experience of the lid becoming dislodged due to pressure being placed on the sides of the cup. It is a common occurrence. Any good parent would not leave their child's safety up to the person working the counter, but rather the parent would PERSONALLY make sure that the child's risk would be minimized, particularly when dealing with hot liquids.
Ms. LaRocco made a mistake and doesn't want to take the blame for it. It is HER responsibility to make sure her child is safe, not McDonald's, Inc.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#7 Aug 30, 2010
Seymore wrote:
<quoted text>
Another moron who thinks he is judge and jury.
It is the responsibility of the PARENT to make sure that their child is safe, nobody else.
Seymore

Chicago, IL

#8 Aug 30, 2010
Hold please wrote:
<quoted text>
It is the responsibility of the PARENT to make sure that their child is safe, nobody else.
Another moron who thinks they have a law degree has spoken. Or should I say farted. For all you know, this daughter was 17 years old. But you are ready to judge the case based on the very little you know. Probably the trend in your life.
Seymore

Chicago, IL

#9 Aug 30, 2010
Hold please wrote:
It's already been addressed, but I'd just like to reiterate that there are two issues here:
1. Ms. LaRocco is not concerned for her child's welfare or the welfare of anyone else who could suffer the same fate - she is simply looking for a payout. Beverage containers already display warnings that the contents may be hot, so there's nothing more that can be done and LaRocco knows this. She's looking for money, plain and simple.
2. Ms. LaRocco is more concerned about receiving a payout and placing blame on McDonald's than she is about accepting that she displayed poor decision-making and parenting skills in this situation. She claims, "...the lid of the cup was improperly secured and the beverage spilled onto her daughter...", to which I must ask - Did she not check the lid prior to handing the beverage to the child? Anyone who has ever been handed a beverage in a fast-food style establishment has had the experience of the lid becoming dislodged due to pressure being placed on the sides of the cup. It is a common occurrence. Any good parent would not leave their child's safety up to the person working the counter, but rather the parent would PERSONALLY make sure that the child's risk would be minimized, particularly when dealing with hot liquids.
Ms. LaRocco made a mistake and doesn't want to take the blame for it. It is HER responsibility to make sure her child is safe, not McDonald's, Inc.
And you got your law degree where, pal?

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#10 Aug 30, 2010
Seymore wrote:
Another moron who thinks they have a law degree has spoken. Or should I say farted.
You COULD say it, but I don't know if you SHOULD, unless you wish to demonstrate your own ignorance.
Seymore wrote:
For all you know, this daughter was 17 years old.
And? You're responsible for your children until they turn 18 in Illinois. And if the girl was 17 and she didn't know how to check the lid, then once again it's a failure on the parent to teach the child properly.
Seymore wrote:
But you are ready to judge the case based on the very little you know. Probably the trend in your life.
Interesting. And yet you seem to find it completely acceptable to attack and insult those who would offer their opinion. And on what basis? Are you having a relationship with Ms. LaRocco? Are you the daughter? Are you Ms. LaRocco? Do you have a grudge against McDonald's in general, or just general disdain for all of Corporate America?
What is your motivation for these unprovoked attacks against RUKIDDNME and myself?

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#11 Aug 30, 2010
Seymore wrote:
<quoted text>
And you got your law degree where, pal?
1. I'm not seeing you posting any diplomas.

2.This isn't about any legal issue, it's about common sense and who's to blame.
Let's imagine all the ways this scenario could have played out and see who's most likely to blame:
a. The lid was never put on the drink
Fault - Ms. LaRocco.
Reason - If the liquid was as hot as she indicated, then Ms. LaRocco should have requested a lid. Once you accept the conditions, you accept the responsibility.
b. The lid became dislodged during transport from vendor to customer
Fault - Ms. LaRocco
Reason - It is the responsibility of the customer to make sure that everything is secured and locked down prior to transport. If a customer is passing the object to their child, it is the responsibility of the customer to make sure the child is as free from injury as possible, not the establishment.
c. The vendor threw the hot drink onto the customer.
Fault - the Vendor
Caveat - as this was not reported as being the case, this scenario is null and void.

The fact is, at the end of the day, the ONLY person responsible for a child is their parent. If the parent neglected to make sure that a container of hot liquid (which was properly marked as such) was properly secured before passing it to their child, that is the fault of the parent.

Whether you want to admit it or not, LaRocco is looking for a payout at the expense of her child.
RUKIDDNME

Elmwood Park, IL

#12 Aug 30, 2010
Seymore wrote:
<quoted text>
Another moron who thinks he is judge and jury.
Not a judge just a smart mother who would not hand a child a hot cup of tea, chocolate or whatever to a child in a moving vehicle so kiss my azz seymore!
RUKIDDNME

Elmwood Park, IL

#13 Aug 30, 2010
Seymore wrote:
<quoted text>
Another moron who thinks they have a law degree has spoken. Or should I say farted. For all you know, this daughter was 17 years old. But you are ready to judge the case based on the very little you know. Probably the trend in your life.
Seymore do you read??? the child was 10 years old. Get your story straight!
RUKIDDNME

Elmwood Park, IL

#14 Aug 30, 2010
Hold please wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I'm not seeing you posting any diplomas.
2.This isn't about any legal issue, it's about common sense and who's to blame.
Let's imagine all the ways this scenario could have played out and see who's most likely to blame:
a. The lid was never put on the drink
Fault - Ms. LaRocco.
Reason - If the liquid was as hot as she indicated, then Ms. LaRocco should have requested a lid. Once you accept the conditions, you accept the responsibility.
b. The lid became dislodged during transport from vendor to customer
Fault - Ms. LaRocco
Reason - It is the responsibility of the customer to make sure that everything is secured and locked down prior to transport. If a customer is passing the object to their child, it is the responsibility of the customer to make sure the child is as free from injury as possible, not the establishment.
c. The vendor threw the hot drink onto the customer.
Fault - the Vendor
Caveat - as this was not reported as being the case, this scenario is null and void.
The fact is, at the end of the day, the ONLY person responsible for a child is their parent. If the parent neglected to make sure that a container of hot liquid (which was properly marked as such) was properly secured before passing it to their child, that is the fault of the parent.
Whether you want to admit it or not, LaRocco is looking for a payout at the expense of her child.
Hold Please, You hit it right on the nose, and I am also convinced that she is looking for a payout at the expense of her child.
Seymore

Chicago, IL

#15 Aug 30, 2010
RUKIDDNME wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a judge just a smart mother who would not hand a child a hot cup of tea, chocolate or whatever to a child in a moving vehicle so kiss my azz seymore!
You are an idiot. really. You do not know if the vehicle was moving. I do not see where the child is 10 years old in the article. You are not really that smart because you are quick to judge who is at fault over a short news story that hardly tells any of the facts and are subject to a trial. This woman deserves her day in court and might be in the right.

I believe McD is possibly at fault because of some of the idiots who work there who can hardly speak English and can't get an order right let alone a cover on a cup properly.

So kiss my ass for being such a know it all based on very little info.
Seymore

Chicago, IL

#16 Aug 30, 2010
RUKIDDNME wrote:
<quoted text>
Seymore do you read??? the child was 10 years old. Get your story straight!
Do you make up shit?

Here is a cut and paste of the story. NOWHERE does it say the daughter is 10 years old, you moron!

COOK COUNTY, Ill.- Vicki LaRocco of Northlake is suing McDonald's, claiming her daughter was seriously burned last year when a hot chocolate she ordered spilled and seriously burned her leg.

The lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, claims LaRocco purchased the hot chocolate for her daughter on April 28, 2009 at a McDonald's drive-through window in Schiller Park, the lid of the cup was improperly secured and the beverage spilled onto her daughter, causing "severe pain and scarring."

An elderly woman was awarded over $2 million in 1994, after suing McDonald's for burns she suffered when coffee she bought at a drive-through window spilled in her lap. A judge later reduced that amount.

McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud declined to comment on the current lawsuit, "At this time, these are just allegations."
citizen

United States

#17 Aug 30, 2010
i agree with Hold Please and Rukiddnme. you need to shut the fu** up. you are ignorant, selfish, and might i say not very intelligent either.:) anyways the lady is looking to get money out of this, believe me i knew a few people in my life who tried doing that and guess what it did not work!! come on you think the judge is that stupid to award every single person who goes to mcDonalds and cries boo hoo hoo hot chocolate was spilled on my child-i'm going to sue.WoW if the judge did award everyone then heck i would fake the whole scenerio in a second to get money off MC d's yeah right fool!! HELL NOOO THE JUDGE DON'T GIVE TWO SHI**!!! SO FORGET ABOUT IT SEYMORE-WHAT A FUC*** UP NAME YOU HAVE TOO. Good Day :)
Seymore

Chicago, IL

#19 Aug 30, 2010
Rukidome can't read and makes up stuff that isn't even in the article. Just a professional genitalia.
justme

Bellflower, CA

#20 Sep 15, 2010
seymore-
the whole reason they put "caution" & "hot" on cups now is because years ago someone sued mcdonalds for the same thing!

people are so quick to blame everyone else for their screw ups these days. its ridiculous to me that she should receive a penny. call me for jury duty!!! this lady isnt getting one damn cent! if she handed the cup off to her daughter, regardless of age, someone probably grabbed it from the top of the cup loosening the lid!(it does not say whether or not this was the case but im sure its not far off) if she was so concerned about her daughter and isnt looking for a payout then she wouldnt have handed the cup to her in the first place until she knew it had cooled down. the fact is SHE was negligent. it says hot on the cup. everyone who can drive a car, have babies, and come up with a lawsuit is well aware of the fact that "hot" beverages at these places come out of a machine and are extremely hot. if she doesnt know this simple fact i hope she stops procreating. what it comes down to: she screwed up and wont accept responsibility. she wants to pretend to be a good parent. you must be somehow related or have done something just as stupid and wish u had gotten a pay off for it in order to be defending her stupidity.
Seymore

Chicago, IL

#21 Sep 16, 2010
justme wrote:
seymore-
the whole reason they put "caution" & "hot" on cups now is because years ago someone sued mcdonalds for the same thing!
people are so quick to blame everyone else for their screw ups these days. its ridiculous to me that she should receive a penny. call me for jury duty!!! this lady isnt getting one damn cent! if she handed the cup off to her daughter, regardless of age, someone probably grabbed it from the top of the cup loosening the lid!(it does not say whether or not this was the case but im sure its not far off) if she was so concerned about her daughter and isnt looking for a payout then she wouldnt have handed the cup to her in the first place until she knew it had cooled down. the fact is SHE was negligent. it says hot on the cup. everyone who can drive a car, have babies, and come up with a lawsuit is well aware of the fact that "hot" beverages at these places come out of a machine and are extremely hot. if she doesnt know this simple fact i hope she stops procreating. what it comes down to: she screwed up and wont accept responsibility. she wants to pretend to be a good parent. you must be somehow related or have done something just as stupid and wish u had gotten a pay off for it in order to be defending her stupidity.
You would be dismissed for jury duty immediately because you have your mind made up before you heard the case. You would make a terrible juror. I hope you never get the chance.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#22 Sep 16, 2010
Seymore wrote:
<quoted text>
You would be dismissed for jury duty immediately because you have your mind made up before you heard the case. You would make a terrible juror. I hope you never get the chance.
As would you, if the Judge and Defense attorney ever heard this:
"I believe McD is possibly at fault because of some of the idiots who work there who can hardly speak English and can't get an order right let alone a cover on a cup properly."

Direct quote from you.

Now personally, I'm going to take this to indicate that you're not interested in whether or not LaRocco is right or wrong, but rather you're simply a bitter and angry person who resents McDonald's for hiring Hispanics. And it is this reason which motivates your view of this case.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Schiller Park Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Rattlesnake Pete 1,745,054
Trump is A 1 hr CrunchyBacon 581
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr CrunchyBacon 105,470
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr Julia 12,219
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 2 hr Julia 1,063
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr loose cannon 243,399
ms 13 5 hr test 8

Schiller Park Jobs

Personal Finance

Schiller Park Mortgages