Latest recipes

Judge Sides With Starbucks in Ice Lawsuit

Judge Sides With Starbucks in Ice Lawsuit


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Because even children can understand the concept of water displacement

Class action lawsuit filed against the company was dismissed by a California federal judge.

Starbucks isn’t cheating its customers with its iced beverages after all, according to a ruling by a California federal judge, who dismissed a class action lawsuit filed by Alexander Forouzesh in May 2016.

Forouzesh claimed that the company “defrauds customers by ‘systematically underfilling’ its iced beverages,” Beverage Daily reported.

“If children have figured out that including ice in a cold beverage decreases the amount of liquid they will receive, the court has no difficulty concluding that a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into thinking that when they order an iced tea, that the drink they receive will include both ice and tea and that for a given size cup, some portion of the drink will be ice rather than whatever liquid beverage the consumer ordered,” U.S. district judge Percy Anderson stated.

On the accusation that Starbucks “knowingly misleads its customers” with its ounce descriptors of its cold drinks on the menu, as consumers receive “roughly half as many ounces as indicated,” the judge noted that the company “does not explicitly advertise” that the drink ordered will contain that many ounces of pure liquid.

Here are 20 things we bet you didn’t know about Starbucks.


Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

Thanks for visiting Consumerist.com. As of October 2017, Consumerist is no longer producing new content, but feel free to browse through our archives. Here you can find 12 years worth of articles on everything from how to avoid dodgy scams to writing an effective complaint letter. Check out some of our greatest hits below, explore the categories listed on the left-hand side of the page, or head to CR.org for ratings, reviews, and consumer news.

Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

A judge in Illinois has thrown out a lawsuit filed against Starbucks by a customer who alleges she was burnt by some spilled hot tea. His reason: Just because tea is hot doesn’t mean you have a good reason to sue.

The facts of the suit were that [the plaintiff] went to the shop to study and purchased a large hot tea. According to her deposition, she wasn’t sure if the lid on the drink was securely in place. She took the drink to a table that she determined was wobbly. Getting up to change tables five to 10 minutes later, the table was jostled and the still-hot drink spilled on to her legs, burning them. She wasn’t certain if she or another customer bumped the table in the crowded business.

Her lawyer said the coffee company was negligent on four fronts — serving tea that was too hot having wobbly tables that could cause a spill not double-cupping the beverage not securing the plastic lid.

But the judge asked the plaintiff’s lawyer a question he couldn’t answer: “What are they to do if people want hot tea? Not sell it in case somebody might spill it?”

He then moved on to dissect the plaintiff’s case, saying it was “pretty speculative” to assert that two cups versus one makes a drink less likely to tip over (especially since some lawsuits against Starbucks have alleged that the double cup throws off the center of gravity making it more likely to spill).

He also asked why, if the plaintiff was concerned about the security of the lid, did she just not remedy that situation herself.

“It seems to me if you’re aware of a condition and choose to do nothing for five to 10 minutes … that can’t be the proximate cause,” he said.

And since the plaintiff had no evidence showing how hot the tea was on that day or how hot the tea would have to be to cause the burns, the judge declared: “As a matter of law I find the fact that a hot beverage could burn you if you pour it on your skin does not stand for the proposition that it’s unreasonably and dangerously hot.”

The plaintiff had been seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

Earlier this month, a judge in NYC dismissed a similar lawsuit. However, in that case the plaintiff alleged that the double-cupping had been the cause of the spill.

Want more consumer news? Visit our parent organization, Consumer Reports, for the latest on scams, recalls, and other consumer issues.


Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

Thanks for visiting Consumerist.com. As of October 2017, Consumerist is no longer producing new content, but feel free to browse through our archives. Here you can find 12 years worth of articles on everything from how to avoid dodgy scams to writing an effective complaint letter. Check out some of our greatest hits below, explore the categories listed on the left-hand side of the page, or head to CR.org for ratings, reviews, and consumer news.

Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

A judge in Illinois has thrown out a lawsuit filed against Starbucks by a customer who alleges she was burnt by some spilled hot tea. His reason: Just because tea is hot doesn’t mean you have a good reason to sue.

The facts of the suit were that [the plaintiff] went to the shop to study and purchased a large hot tea. According to her deposition, she wasn’t sure if the lid on the drink was securely in place. She took the drink to a table that she determined was wobbly. Getting up to change tables five to 10 minutes later, the table was jostled and the still-hot drink spilled on to her legs, burning them. She wasn’t certain if she or another customer bumped the table in the crowded business.

Her lawyer said the coffee company was negligent on four fronts — serving tea that was too hot having wobbly tables that could cause a spill not double-cupping the beverage not securing the plastic lid.

But the judge asked the plaintiff’s lawyer a question he couldn’t answer: “What are they to do if people want hot tea? Not sell it in case somebody might spill it?”

He then moved on to dissect the plaintiff’s case, saying it was “pretty speculative” to assert that two cups versus one makes a drink less likely to tip over (especially since some lawsuits against Starbucks have alleged that the double cup throws off the center of gravity making it more likely to spill).

He also asked why, if the plaintiff was concerned about the security of the lid, did she just not remedy that situation herself.

“It seems to me if you’re aware of a condition and choose to do nothing for five to 10 minutes … that can’t be the proximate cause,” he said.

And since the plaintiff had no evidence showing how hot the tea was on that day or how hot the tea would have to be to cause the burns, the judge declared: “As a matter of law I find the fact that a hot beverage could burn you if you pour it on your skin does not stand for the proposition that it’s unreasonably and dangerously hot.”

The plaintiff had been seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

Earlier this month, a judge in NYC dismissed a similar lawsuit. However, in that case the plaintiff alleged that the double-cupping had been the cause of the spill.

Want more consumer news? Visit our parent organization, Consumer Reports, for the latest on scams, recalls, and other consumer issues.


Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

Thanks for visiting Consumerist.com. As of October 2017, Consumerist is no longer producing new content, but feel free to browse through our archives. Here you can find 12 years worth of articles on everything from how to avoid dodgy scams to writing an effective complaint letter. Check out some of our greatest hits below, explore the categories listed on the left-hand side of the page, or head to CR.org for ratings, reviews, and consumer news.

Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

A judge in Illinois has thrown out a lawsuit filed against Starbucks by a customer who alleges she was burnt by some spilled hot tea. His reason: Just because tea is hot doesn’t mean you have a good reason to sue.

The facts of the suit were that [the plaintiff] went to the shop to study and purchased a large hot tea. According to her deposition, she wasn’t sure if the lid on the drink was securely in place. She took the drink to a table that she determined was wobbly. Getting up to change tables five to 10 minutes later, the table was jostled and the still-hot drink spilled on to her legs, burning them. She wasn’t certain if she or another customer bumped the table in the crowded business.

Her lawyer said the coffee company was negligent on four fronts — serving tea that was too hot having wobbly tables that could cause a spill not double-cupping the beverage not securing the plastic lid.

But the judge asked the plaintiff’s lawyer a question he couldn’t answer: “What are they to do if people want hot tea? Not sell it in case somebody might spill it?”

He then moved on to dissect the plaintiff’s case, saying it was “pretty speculative” to assert that two cups versus one makes a drink less likely to tip over (especially since some lawsuits against Starbucks have alleged that the double cup throws off the center of gravity making it more likely to spill).

He also asked why, if the plaintiff was concerned about the security of the lid, did she just not remedy that situation herself.

“It seems to me if you’re aware of a condition and choose to do nothing for five to 10 minutes … that can’t be the proximate cause,” he said.

And since the plaintiff had no evidence showing how hot the tea was on that day or how hot the tea would have to be to cause the burns, the judge declared: “As a matter of law I find the fact that a hot beverage could burn you if you pour it on your skin does not stand for the proposition that it’s unreasonably and dangerously hot.”

The plaintiff had been seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

Earlier this month, a judge in NYC dismissed a similar lawsuit. However, in that case the plaintiff alleged that the double-cupping had been the cause of the spill.

Want more consumer news? Visit our parent organization, Consumer Reports, for the latest on scams, recalls, and other consumer issues.


Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

Thanks for visiting Consumerist.com. As of October 2017, Consumerist is no longer producing new content, but feel free to browse through our archives. Here you can find 12 years worth of articles on everything from how to avoid dodgy scams to writing an effective complaint letter. Check out some of our greatest hits below, explore the categories listed on the left-hand side of the page, or head to CR.org for ratings, reviews, and consumer news.

Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

A judge in Illinois has thrown out a lawsuit filed against Starbucks by a customer who alleges she was burnt by some spilled hot tea. His reason: Just because tea is hot doesn’t mean you have a good reason to sue.

The facts of the suit were that [the plaintiff] went to the shop to study and purchased a large hot tea. According to her deposition, she wasn’t sure if the lid on the drink was securely in place. She took the drink to a table that she determined was wobbly. Getting up to change tables five to 10 minutes later, the table was jostled and the still-hot drink spilled on to her legs, burning them. She wasn’t certain if she or another customer bumped the table in the crowded business.

Her lawyer said the coffee company was negligent on four fronts — serving tea that was too hot having wobbly tables that could cause a spill not double-cupping the beverage not securing the plastic lid.

But the judge asked the plaintiff’s lawyer a question he couldn’t answer: “What are they to do if people want hot tea? Not sell it in case somebody might spill it?”

He then moved on to dissect the plaintiff’s case, saying it was “pretty speculative” to assert that two cups versus one makes a drink less likely to tip over (especially since some lawsuits against Starbucks have alleged that the double cup throws off the center of gravity making it more likely to spill).

He also asked why, if the plaintiff was concerned about the security of the lid, did she just not remedy that situation herself.

“It seems to me if you’re aware of a condition and choose to do nothing for five to 10 minutes … that can’t be the proximate cause,” he said.

And since the plaintiff had no evidence showing how hot the tea was on that day or how hot the tea would have to be to cause the burns, the judge declared: “As a matter of law I find the fact that a hot beverage could burn you if you pour it on your skin does not stand for the proposition that it’s unreasonably and dangerously hot.”

The plaintiff had been seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

Earlier this month, a judge in NYC dismissed a similar lawsuit. However, in that case the plaintiff alleged that the double-cupping had been the cause of the spill.

Want more consumer news? Visit our parent organization, Consumer Reports, for the latest on scams, recalls, and other consumer issues.


Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

Thanks for visiting Consumerist.com. As of October 2017, Consumerist is no longer producing new content, but feel free to browse through our archives. Here you can find 12 years worth of articles on everything from how to avoid dodgy scams to writing an effective complaint letter. Check out some of our greatest hits below, explore the categories listed on the left-hand side of the page, or head to CR.org for ratings, reviews, and consumer news.

Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

A judge in Illinois has thrown out a lawsuit filed against Starbucks by a customer who alleges she was burnt by some spilled hot tea. His reason: Just because tea is hot doesn’t mean you have a good reason to sue.

The facts of the suit were that [the plaintiff] went to the shop to study and purchased a large hot tea. According to her deposition, she wasn’t sure if the lid on the drink was securely in place. She took the drink to a table that she determined was wobbly. Getting up to change tables five to 10 minutes later, the table was jostled and the still-hot drink spilled on to her legs, burning them. She wasn’t certain if she or another customer bumped the table in the crowded business.

Her lawyer said the coffee company was negligent on four fronts — serving tea that was too hot having wobbly tables that could cause a spill not double-cupping the beverage not securing the plastic lid.

But the judge asked the plaintiff’s lawyer a question he couldn’t answer: “What are they to do if people want hot tea? Not sell it in case somebody might spill it?”

He then moved on to dissect the plaintiff’s case, saying it was “pretty speculative” to assert that two cups versus one makes a drink less likely to tip over (especially since some lawsuits against Starbucks have alleged that the double cup throws off the center of gravity making it more likely to spill).

He also asked why, if the plaintiff was concerned about the security of the lid, did she just not remedy that situation herself.

“It seems to me if you’re aware of a condition and choose to do nothing for five to 10 minutes … that can’t be the proximate cause,” he said.

And since the plaintiff had no evidence showing how hot the tea was on that day or how hot the tea would have to be to cause the burns, the judge declared: “As a matter of law I find the fact that a hot beverage could burn you if you pour it on your skin does not stand for the proposition that it’s unreasonably and dangerously hot.”

The plaintiff had been seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

Earlier this month, a judge in NYC dismissed a similar lawsuit. However, in that case the plaintiff alleged that the double-cupping had been the cause of the spill.

Want more consumer news? Visit our parent organization, Consumer Reports, for the latest on scams, recalls, and other consumer issues.


Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

Thanks for visiting Consumerist.com. As of October 2017, Consumerist is no longer producing new content, but feel free to browse through our archives. Here you can find 12 years worth of articles on everything from how to avoid dodgy scams to writing an effective complaint letter. Check out some of our greatest hits below, explore the categories listed on the left-hand side of the page, or head to CR.org for ratings, reviews, and consumer news.

Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

A judge in Illinois has thrown out a lawsuit filed against Starbucks by a customer who alleges she was burnt by some spilled hot tea. His reason: Just because tea is hot doesn’t mean you have a good reason to sue.

The facts of the suit were that [the plaintiff] went to the shop to study and purchased a large hot tea. According to her deposition, she wasn’t sure if the lid on the drink was securely in place. She took the drink to a table that she determined was wobbly. Getting up to change tables five to 10 minutes later, the table was jostled and the still-hot drink spilled on to her legs, burning them. She wasn’t certain if she or another customer bumped the table in the crowded business.

Her lawyer said the coffee company was negligent on four fronts — serving tea that was too hot having wobbly tables that could cause a spill not double-cupping the beverage not securing the plastic lid.

But the judge asked the plaintiff’s lawyer a question he couldn’t answer: “What are they to do if people want hot tea? Not sell it in case somebody might spill it?”

He then moved on to dissect the plaintiff’s case, saying it was “pretty speculative” to assert that two cups versus one makes a drink less likely to tip over (especially since some lawsuits against Starbucks have alleged that the double cup throws off the center of gravity making it more likely to spill).

He also asked why, if the plaintiff was concerned about the security of the lid, did she just not remedy that situation herself.

“It seems to me if you’re aware of a condition and choose to do nothing for five to 10 minutes … that can’t be the proximate cause,” he said.

And since the plaintiff had no evidence showing how hot the tea was on that day or how hot the tea would have to be to cause the burns, the judge declared: “As a matter of law I find the fact that a hot beverage could burn you if you pour it on your skin does not stand for the proposition that it’s unreasonably and dangerously hot.”

The plaintiff had been seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

Earlier this month, a judge in NYC dismissed a similar lawsuit. However, in that case the plaintiff alleged that the double-cupping had been the cause of the spill.

Want more consumer news? Visit our parent organization, Consumer Reports, for the latest on scams, recalls, and other consumer issues.


Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

Thanks for visiting Consumerist.com. As of October 2017, Consumerist is no longer producing new content, but feel free to browse through our archives. Here you can find 12 years worth of articles on everything from how to avoid dodgy scams to writing an effective complaint letter. Check out some of our greatest hits below, explore the categories listed on the left-hand side of the page, or head to CR.org for ratings, reviews, and consumer news.

Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

A judge in Illinois has thrown out a lawsuit filed against Starbucks by a customer who alleges she was burnt by some spilled hot tea. His reason: Just because tea is hot doesn’t mean you have a good reason to sue.

The facts of the suit were that [the plaintiff] went to the shop to study and purchased a large hot tea. According to her deposition, she wasn’t sure if the lid on the drink was securely in place. She took the drink to a table that she determined was wobbly. Getting up to change tables five to 10 minutes later, the table was jostled and the still-hot drink spilled on to her legs, burning them. She wasn’t certain if she or another customer bumped the table in the crowded business.

Her lawyer said the coffee company was negligent on four fronts — serving tea that was too hot having wobbly tables that could cause a spill not double-cupping the beverage not securing the plastic lid.

But the judge asked the plaintiff’s lawyer a question he couldn’t answer: “What are they to do if people want hot tea? Not sell it in case somebody might spill it?”

He then moved on to dissect the plaintiff’s case, saying it was “pretty speculative” to assert that two cups versus one makes a drink less likely to tip over (especially since some lawsuits against Starbucks have alleged that the double cup throws off the center of gravity making it more likely to spill).

He also asked why, if the plaintiff was concerned about the security of the lid, did she just not remedy that situation herself.

“It seems to me if you’re aware of a condition and choose to do nothing for five to 10 minutes … that can’t be the proximate cause,” he said.

And since the plaintiff had no evidence showing how hot the tea was on that day or how hot the tea would have to be to cause the burns, the judge declared: “As a matter of law I find the fact that a hot beverage could burn you if you pour it on your skin does not stand for the proposition that it’s unreasonably and dangerously hot.”

The plaintiff had been seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

Earlier this month, a judge in NYC dismissed a similar lawsuit. However, in that case the plaintiff alleged that the double-cupping had been the cause of the spill.

Want more consumer news? Visit our parent organization, Consumer Reports, for the latest on scams, recalls, and other consumer issues.


Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

Thanks for visiting Consumerist.com. As of October 2017, Consumerist is no longer producing new content, but feel free to browse through our archives. Here you can find 12 years worth of articles on everything from how to avoid dodgy scams to writing an effective complaint letter. Check out some of our greatest hits below, explore the categories listed on the left-hand side of the page, or head to CR.org for ratings, reviews, and consumer news.

Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

A judge in Illinois has thrown out a lawsuit filed against Starbucks by a customer who alleges she was burnt by some spilled hot tea. His reason: Just because tea is hot doesn’t mean you have a good reason to sue.

The facts of the suit were that [the plaintiff] went to the shop to study and purchased a large hot tea. According to her deposition, she wasn’t sure if the lid on the drink was securely in place. She took the drink to a table that she determined was wobbly. Getting up to change tables five to 10 minutes later, the table was jostled and the still-hot drink spilled on to her legs, burning them. She wasn’t certain if she or another customer bumped the table in the crowded business.

Her lawyer said the coffee company was negligent on four fronts — serving tea that was too hot having wobbly tables that could cause a spill not double-cupping the beverage not securing the plastic lid.

But the judge asked the plaintiff’s lawyer a question he couldn’t answer: “What are they to do if people want hot tea? Not sell it in case somebody might spill it?”

He then moved on to dissect the plaintiff’s case, saying it was “pretty speculative” to assert that two cups versus one makes a drink less likely to tip over (especially since some lawsuits against Starbucks have alleged that the double cup throws off the center of gravity making it more likely to spill).

He also asked why, if the plaintiff was concerned about the security of the lid, did she just not remedy that situation herself.

“It seems to me if you’re aware of a condition and choose to do nothing for five to 10 minutes … that can’t be the proximate cause,” he said.

And since the plaintiff had no evidence showing how hot the tea was on that day or how hot the tea would have to be to cause the burns, the judge declared: “As a matter of law I find the fact that a hot beverage could burn you if you pour it on your skin does not stand for the proposition that it’s unreasonably and dangerously hot.”

The plaintiff had been seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

Earlier this month, a judge in NYC dismissed a similar lawsuit. However, in that case the plaintiff alleged that the double-cupping had been the cause of the spill.

Want more consumer news? Visit our parent organization, Consumer Reports, for the latest on scams, recalls, and other consumer issues.


Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

Thanks for visiting Consumerist.com. As of October 2017, Consumerist is no longer producing new content, but feel free to browse through our archives. Here you can find 12 years worth of articles on everything from how to avoid dodgy scams to writing an effective complaint letter. Check out some of our greatest hits below, explore the categories listed on the left-hand side of the page, or head to CR.org for ratings, reviews, and consumer news.

Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

A judge in Illinois has thrown out a lawsuit filed against Starbucks by a customer who alleges she was burnt by some spilled hot tea. His reason: Just because tea is hot doesn’t mean you have a good reason to sue.

The facts of the suit were that [the plaintiff] went to the shop to study and purchased a large hot tea. According to her deposition, she wasn’t sure if the lid on the drink was securely in place. She took the drink to a table that she determined was wobbly. Getting up to change tables five to 10 minutes later, the table was jostled and the still-hot drink spilled on to her legs, burning them. She wasn’t certain if she or another customer bumped the table in the crowded business.

Her lawyer said the coffee company was negligent on four fronts — serving tea that was too hot having wobbly tables that could cause a spill not double-cupping the beverage not securing the plastic lid.

But the judge asked the plaintiff’s lawyer a question he couldn’t answer: “What are they to do if people want hot tea? Not sell it in case somebody might spill it?”

He then moved on to dissect the plaintiff’s case, saying it was “pretty speculative” to assert that two cups versus one makes a drink less likely to tip over (especially since some lawsuits against Starbucks have alleged that the double cup throws off the center of gravity making it more likely to spill).

He also asked why, if the plaintiff was concerned about the security of the lid, did she just not remedy that situation herself.

“It seems to me if you’re aware of a condition and choose to do nothing for five to 10 minutes … that can’t be the proximate cause,” he said.

And since the plaintiff had no evidence showing how hot the tea was on that day or how hot the tea would have to be to cause the burns, the judge declared: “As a matter of law I find the fact that a hot beverage could burn you if you pour it on your skin does not stand for the proposition that it’s unreasonably and dangerously hot.”

The plaintiff had been seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

Earlier this month, a judge in NYC dismissed a similar lawsuit. However, in that case the plaintiff alleged that the double-cupping had been the cause of the spill.

Want more consumer news? Visit our parent organization, Consumer Reports, for the latest on scams, recalls, and other consumer issues.


Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

Thanks for visiting Consumerist.com. As of October 2017, Consumerist is no longer producing new content, but feel free to browse through our archives. Here you can find 12 years worth of articles on everything from how to avoid dodgy scams to writing an effective complaint letter. Check out some of our greatest hits below, explore the categories listed on the left-hand side of the page, or head to CR.org for ratings, reviews, and consumer news.

Judge Dismisses Hot Tea Lawsuit Against Starbucks

A judge in Illinois has thrown out a lawsuit filed against Starbucks by a customer who alleges she was burnt by some spilled hot tea. His reason: Just because tea is hot doesn’t mean you have a good reason to sue.

The facts of the suit were that [the plaintiff] went to the shop to study and purchased a large hot tea. According to her deposition, she wasn’t sure if the lid on the drink was securely in place. She took the drink to a table that she determined was wobbly. Getting up to change tables five to 10 minutes later, the table was jostled and the still-hot drink spilled on to her legs, burning them. She wasn’t certain if she or another customer bumped the table in the crowded business.

Her lawyer said the coffee company was negligent on four fronts — serving tea that was too hot having wobbly tables that could cause a spill not double-cupping the beverage not securing the plastic lid.

But the judge asked the plaintiff’s lawyer a question he couldn’t answer: “What are they to do if people want hot tea? Not sell it in case somebody might spill it?”

He then moved on to dissect the plaintiff’s case, saying it was “pretty speculative” to assert that two cups versus one makes a drink less likely to tip over (especially since some lawsuits against Starbucks have alleged that the double cup throws off the center of gravity making it more likely to spill).

He also asked why, if the plaintiff was concerned about the security of the lid, did she just not remedy that situation herself.

“It seems to me if you’re aware of a condition and choose to do nothing for five to 10 minutes … that can’t be the proximate cause,” he said.

And since the plaintiff had no evidence showing how hot the tea was on that day or how hot the tea would have to be to cause the burns, the judge declared: “As a matter of law I find the fact that a hot beverage could burn you if you pour it on your skin does not stand for the proposition that it’s unreasonably and dangerously hot.”

The plaintiff had been seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

Earlier this month, a judge in NYC dismissed a similar lawsuit. However, in that case the plaintiff alleged that the double-cupping had been the cause of the spill.

Want more consumer news? Visit our parent organization, Consumer Reports, for the latest on scams, recalls, and other consumer issues.


Watch the video: Η ιερόδουλη που σκότωσε μαζί με τον σύζυγό της την ανταγωνίστρια, διότι της έκλεβε τους πελάτες!! (June 2022).