This site uses cookies.

McDonalds Coffee Case - Round Two - Simon Trigger, 1 Chancery Lane

31/05/14. Many of us will be familiar with the much ridiculed but ultimately successful 1994 McDonalds coffee claim made in America. For those who do not know the facts of that case the Claimant suffered third degree burns to her legs due to a McDonald’s coffee that they claimed was excessively hot and which was due to a failure to adequately label the coffee cup. The Claimant in that case was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages (reduced on appeal). This case is often used by the popular press as an example of a compensation culture gone wild. Well where the USA leads the UK is sure to follow.

The Sunday Sport is reporting that Howard Russell is considering bringing a personal injury claim against Greggs. The basis for his claim is that Mr Russell managed to burn his private parts while attempting to fornicate with a chicken bake pasty. Mr Russell alleges that there was a failure to label the Pasties as being unsafe for an act of fornication. As Mr Russell told the Sunday Sport "I have been into Greggs many, many times and never have I seen a sign warning you not to put your penis into one of their products – especially after it has been reheated. That, to me, is a clear case of negligence and I intend to sue".

Mr Russell has sought legal advice to bring his claim. However as Mr Russell commented "I made a phone call to one of those solicitors who advertise on the telly but unfortunately the person on the end of the phone had some sort of coughing fit when I explained my predicament". Greggs were at the time of the press report unavailable to comment.

In this day and age of reducing amounts of personal injury work it is perhaps pleasing to note that the ways and means in which Claimants can injure themselves remains undiminished.

Simon Trigger
1 Chancery Lane

Image ©

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.