Posted on 05/23/2014 3:57:26 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
A UC Berkeley graduate who was severely burned after spilling hot coffee on her lap filed a lawsuit Thursday against In-N-Out Burger claiming employees in Oakland refused to call an ambulance.
Hedy Chen claims employees at the drive-through restaurant ignored her screams and repeated requests to call 911. Instead, she was given a pack of ice, which can exacerbate scarring, according to the suit filed in Alameda County Superior Court.
"What they were supposed to do was call 911 because the operators know that" ice is bad, said Kirk Boyd, her lawyer. "They said there is a policy of not calling 911. That policy violates their duty of care to customers."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
As far as the ice....common sense says put something down first so the ice isn't in direct contact. We don't even know if she used it or was given it.
I’m betting the student was on the phone when she reached for the coffee.
solid productive citizen or wealthy activist??
. Looks like she screamed call 911 all right. But not necessarily directed at the take out joint.
Now read the part where it says her FRIEND IN HER CAR EVENTUALLY called 911.
We’ll see how that one “plays” for the jury ... :-) ...
And remember, each one of the jury members will be placing themselves in a similar situation (by comparison), when being at a business, where they need a 911 call, and a worker comes up to them and gives them a “list of reasons” from a company policy piece of paper, WHY they can’t call 911 ... LOL ...
I think you did not read then entire article. ... :-) ...
Quoting — “They said there is a policy of not calling 911.”
If employees (and company) doesn’t recognize that a person is asking for them to call 911 ... they don’t cite “company policy” to them ... LOL ....
The problem was that it was “too hot to handle” and she couldn’t hold onto it. Think of a “hot potato” that you’ve juggled when it’s too hot to handle ... except that full coffee cups don’t juggle very well ... :-) ...
But, the real problem here is the “unilateral determination” by the company as to whether a customer is in emergency medical need or not - and then deciding on their own that that the customer is not in medical need and this REFUSING to call 911.
Can you imagine the people on the jury hearing that and wondering to themselves how a pimply-faced teenager is going to determine that they don’t need 911, if they were the ones there and having a heart attack! ... LOL ...
After the jury hears that the customer was admitted into the hospital - by medical doctors for three days ... that’s going to seal the fate of that company.
It’s not a matter of “speculation”as to how serious it was ... as the doctors at the hospital admitted her for a three-day stay. I got a three day stay at a hospital for doing thorough tests, upon my arrival there, to see if I had a heart attack!
There’s no “he said/she said” to this situation. When a customer asks for 911, a company does not “unilaterally decide” that the customer does not need that medical attention, based upon the medical determination of some pimply-face teenager, they just hired ... LOL ...
I think she did in fact say call 911 but it wasn't directed explicitly at the employee.
I'm sure both her and her friend had cell phones.
How did the employee handle it without dropping it?? And she would have handled it even longer....
There is some conversation missing....Why would the clerk give her an ice pack?? Did Hedy Chen request it?? I'm betting her friend did. The clerk likely had to ask someone else about where they were etc.. The joint would have been in total chaos if things were as the attorney implied.
This all happened a years ago and was just filed?? There is likely a lot of correspondence in between to keep this active for filing now.
And I'm betting the friend also asked for the ice pack.
If I were standing on the sidewalk and just passing by - I personally would have called 911. That, of course is not the issue ... namely how many other people were in “earshot range” and could have called.
The issue that is going to be brought before a jury is that while in a direct business transaction with employees of that business, they refused to call 911, even while directly interacting with her — WHILE AT THE SAME TIME — telling her to “move her car” ... LOL ...
The part where a clerk can get an ice pack for a customer screaming for 911, but cannot call 911 (which is a simpler task), and having it cited that it’s against company policy to call 911 — is what is going to do this company in ... with a jury.
Sorry....The girl’s friend was in the car...And she was the one that called 911.
If I was in the car behind her ... I would have called 911 ... :-) ...
But then, that wasn’t the issue, as I wasn’t the one who gave her a cup that was too hot to hold onto. The business did that. And then on top of that, they wouldn’t call 911 saying that it was a matter go policy to NOT CALL 911.
For all the company knows, it could have been a heart attack. The company is going to end up paying for that policy that they cited, saying it was against policy to call 911.
And her friend in the car called 911. These little articles taint a jury.
A lot missing. Did she move the car?? Did she drive to the hospital? Who's this secret friend?
Sonic Burger IS in the West.
My question is WHY she did NOT call 911 I am quite sure SHE had a
cell phone!!!!!
She your girl friend? LOL...
Or your client? LOL...
Or maybe you are her's! LOL...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.