Quantcast

Applebee's counsel says allegations tied to toddler's hot fudge burns aren't specific enough

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Friday, November 29, 2024

Applebee's counsel says allegations tied to toddler's hot fudge burns aren't specific enough

State Court
Webp andrejwebb

Webb | German Gallagher & Murtaugh

PITTSBURGH – Counsel for an Applebee’s restaurant has countered that allegations of negligence tied to a plaintiff’s daughter receiving second-degree burns from hot fudge on a chocolate cake dessert, lack requisite specificity.

L.B. (a minor, by and through her parent and natural guardian, Tiffany Blakeney) of Leechburg first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on April 19 versus Applebee’s Restaurants, LLC of Leawood, Kan., Applebee’s Restaurants, LLC (operating under the fictitious name Applebee’s Bar + Grill – Tarentum) of Tarentum, Flynn Group, Incorporated and Flynn Group, Incorporated (operating under the fictitious name “Flynn Group”), of Lemoyne.

“On or about Dec. 18, 2022, while eating a meal at Applebee’s, the plaintiff L.B. received a second-degree burn to her chin due to the unreasonably and abnormally hot temperature of the food she was served. L.B.’s older sister and her sister’s boyfriend took L.B. to Applebee’s to enjoy a meal together for the holidays. After finishing her meal, L.B. ordered a Triple Chocolate Meltdown, Applebee’s version of a chocolate lava cake, which she had ordered on several prior occasions without incident,” the suit said.

“The Triple Chocolate Meltdown is a small chocolate cake both topped and filled with liquid chocolate fudge. The Applebee’s menu describes the dessert as a ‘Warm, rich, fudge-filled chocolate cake drizzled with hot fudge. Served with vanilla ice cream.’ As L.B. took her first bite of the dessert, unreasonably and abnormally hot liquid chocolate fudge dripped onto her chin causing burns, redness, blisters and immediate pain severe enough to cause L.B. to burst into tears.”

The suit added that “the Applebee’s employee serving the dessert did not warn L.B., nor the others at the table, of the dangerous condition of the dessert’s unreasonably and abnormally hot temperature” and that “the menu describing the dessert does not sufficiently warn of the dangerous and unreasonably and abnormally hot temperature.”

“Following the incident, L.B. returned home where she treated with Neosporin and bandages. However, L.B. continued to experience significant pain, described as an 8/10, for three days. On Dec. 21, 2022, after experiencing continued significant pain on the skin of her chin, plaintiff presented herself for medical examination at UPMC Children’s Community Pediatrics where she was subsequently diagnosed with a second degree burn and was prescribed Silver Sulfadiazine 1% cream,” the suit stated.

“Despite treating fully as instructed, L.B. continued to experience pain, as well as developing scarring and acne on the skin surrounding the burn. As a result of her burn, and associated scar and acne, L.B. has experienced several instances of bullying at school. L.B. has a pre-existing diagnosis of depression and anxiety. The bullying as a result of her burn has significantly exacerbated L.B.’s mental anguish, created behavioral problems in the home and severely hindered her ability to fully engage with her schooling.”

UPDATE

Defense counsel filed preliminary objections on May 14, charging that the plaintiff did not plead the components of their claims with the mandatory level of specificity, as per Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) and 1028(a)(3).

“Plaintiff’s complaint is insufficiently specific as plaintiff includes unlimiting language when listing the alleged acts of negligence attributable to objecting defendant. Such language permits plaintiff the opportunity to subsequently amend her theories of liability against objecting defendant to those matters not pled in the complaint, leaving objecting defendant continuously guessing as to which allegations it is required to defend. As such, the above-referenced language of plaintiff’s complaint fails to plead the required specific information to afford objecting defendant the opportunity to properly answer and defend such allegations as required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure,” according to the objections.

For multiple counts of negligence, vicarious liability, strict liability (defective condition) negligent failure to warn, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and consequential damages from the defendants in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, together with interest, costs of suit, and any other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate to recover for which this suit is filed.

The plaintiff is represented by Mark D. Troyan of Robert Peirce & Associates, in Pittsburgh.

The defendants are represented by Andre J. Webb and Francis V. Bovio of German Gallagher & Murtaugh, in Philadelphia.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-24-004501

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News