Haslip v. Dunkin' Brands Group

Defense Verdict

Date of Verdict: July 25.

Court and Case No.: C.P. Montgomery No. 2017-20804

Judge: Garrett D. Page.

Type of Action: Negligence.

Injuries: Burns.

Plaintiffs Counsel: Frank Palecko, Simon & Simon.

Plaintiffs Expert: Geoffrey W. Temple, family medicine; Philadelphia.

Defense Counsel: Peter D. Bludman, Margolis Edelstein.

Comment:

On Nov. 15, 2016, John Haslip, 57, a home inspector, bought a 24-ounce cup of coffee at a Dunkin' Donuts drive-through in Worcester. After getting the coffee, Haslip placed it in his car's cup holder and drove five minutes to his home. After parking in his driveway, he picked up the cup just below the lid with his right hand. The lid came off and coffee spilled onto Haslip's right inner thigh, burning him.

Haslip sued Dunkin' Donuts, its owner, Dunkin' Brands Group Inc., and franchisee Pemma Inc., alleging negligence.

Haslip's counsel maintained that Dunkin' Donuts' failure to properly secure the cup's lid caused the accident.

Defense counsel maintained that the cup's lid had been properly secured and it was the manner by which Haslip picked up the cup that caused it to spill. Given the size of the cup, the lid was prone to disengage if a user picked it up from the top, as Haslip did. He should have used two hands to pick up the cup, with one hand at the middle of the cup and then the other hand cupping the bottom.

The franchisee owner testified that a cup's lid goes through a two-step-securing process: The person who pours the coffee secures the lid, and the cashier, before handing the coffee to a customer, makes sure the lid is firmly secured on the coffee.

Following the accident, Haslip went into his house and applied water and ice to his right thigh. The next day, he presented to an urgent-care facility, where he received ointment.

In the ensuing weeks, Haslip continued to treat with the ointment. About a month following the accident, he presented to a family-medicine physician, who diagnosed second-degree burns to his inner thigh. Haslip was referred to a plastic surgeon, who recommended reconstructive surgery, but Haslip declined.

Haslip's family-medicine physician testified that he has three permanent scars, one of which is a keloid scar about 0.25 inches long and 0.125 inches wide.

Haslip testified that he has discomfort from the scars. He suffers chafing when he climbs ladders at work. He sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.

Defense counsel did not dispute Haslip's injuries.

The jury rendered a defense verdict.

This report is based on information that was provided by defense counsel. Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to calls for comment.

—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication.