I’ve previously argued that the McDonald’s coffee case was just as bad as the general public thought it was, despite some intellectuals’ desire to make excuses for it. Even if the coffee was hotter than competitors’, well, the point of a free market is to have a variety of products available. The woman balanced what she knew was a scalding-hot beverage in her crotch and took the lid off while driving. In a younger woman that would be called “Darwinism;” for someone her age, it’s just her problem.

However, I have a little more sympathy for the parents in this similar Starbucks case. The mother ordered a children’s hot chocolate — it is Starbucks’ policy to serve children’s drinks a little cooler than adults’ — and as she pulled away, the coffee spilled.

From the story:

“The child was ’screaming in pain,’ and her mother pulled over, got Rachel out and removed her clothes to find the ’skin on Rachel’s leg was falling off of her.’”

Starbucks claims the beverage was served at the proper temperature, and it should not have to pay any damages.

Where I hesitate is that the drink was specifically marketed to children. That would imply that the lid, and to the greatest possible degree the temperature, is safe for someone too immature to handle adult-hot drinks. I think an important unknown detail is how the cover came off. If it was improperly fastened or too weak to hold Starbucks is almost certainly liable; if the kid took it off, the decision will hinge on whether the lower-but-still-high temperature was necessary in a children’s hot chocolate. The company shouldn’t have to serve lukewarm drinks, but it shouldn’t burn kids for a few extra degrees, either.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.