Parents say Chicken McNuggets were so hot they ‘disfigured’ their 4-year-old in lawsuit against McDonald’s
A lawsuit against McDonald’s claims that a 4-year-old was disfigured when she was burnt by a Chicken McNugget that had slipped below her seatbelt against her skin.
The family says that the mother of the child purchased happy meals at McDonald’s in 2019 but later found that her daughter had been badly burnt by one of the McNuggets, according to WHO-TV.
Video obtained by WPLG-TV shows the mom being handed the happy meals at the drive-thru of the fast food restaurant before she hands them to her children in the backseat.
“The Chicken McNuggets inside of that Happy Meal were unreasonably and dangerously hot,” the lawsuit read.
The family says that the McNuggets were so hot that their daughter was “disfigured and scarred” in the incident.
Graphic images of the injury can be seen the news video from WPLG.
Jordan Redavid, the family’s attorney, argued that the nuggets were so hot that they were “unfit for human handling — let alone consumption.”
They are seeking $15,000 in damages.
“The reasonable, foreseeable, intended use is for a child to handle this box,” said Redavid. “The law implies a promise from a corporation, in this case, a child, that when they use it as intended, they’ll be safe. It wasn’t.”
Scott Younts, the attorney representing McDonald’s, argued that health codes required the restaurant to heat the nuggets enough to meet safety standards.
“She has one burn, and that’s the one location where the McNugget was trapped by the seatbelt for two minutes,” said Younts in court. “The Chicken McNuggets are not defective, they are not unreasonably dangerous, they are not dangerously hot, and there is no negligence.”
McDonald’s also released a statement about the case.
“This matter was looked into thoroughly,” the company said in part. “Ensuring a high standard for food safety and quality means following strict policies and procedures for each product we cook and serve. Those policies and procedures were followed in this case and we therefore respectfully disagree with the plaintiff’s claims.”