Pa. woman sues Dunkin' Donuts over sugar in coffee

[buddahj]

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A Philadelphia woman is suing Dunkin' Donuts, saying a worker mistakenly put sugar in her coffee, which ultimately caused her to go into diabetic shock.

 

Danielle Jordan's lawsuit claims she asked for artificial sweetener to be added to her coffee during a June 2009 visit. Jordan claims she downed the drink and experienced dizziness, light-headedness and ended up making an emergency trip to the hospital.

 

A legal liaison for the Canton, Mass.-based doughnut chain told the Philadelphia Daily News she couldn't comment on the case. But she says employees only provide customers with the order they ask for.

 

Jordan's lawyer, Kenneth Rodgers, says his client couldn't tell from the taste of the coffee that she got sugar instead of her preferred artificial sweetener. He says she didn't finish the drink before she fell ill.

 

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

 

I wonder how much sugar they had to put in her coffee to cause her to go into diabetic shock?

I wouldn't be surprised if they start serving their coffee black & make the patrons add their own cream/sugar.

[yo mama]

I wonder how much sugar they had to put in her coffee to cause her to go into diabetic shock?

I wouldn't be surprised if they start serving their coffee black & make the patrons add their own cream/sugar.

Sure. Because someone worried about sugar is at a donut shop, naturally.

[loaf]

A legal liaison for the Canton, Mass.-based doughnut chain told the Philadelphia Daily News she couldn't comment on the case. But she says employees only provide customers with the order they ask for.

this simply isn't true. I ordered a coffee black. got to work and it was loaded with sugar and cream. Poured it out.

[millerx]

I think she should be awarded 1 buzillion dollars for this. How dare they screw up like that.

Edited June 4, 2011 by millerx

[moneymakers]

I think she should be awarded 1 buzillion dollars for these. How dare they screw up like that.

 

 

Change the name of the place to Danielles Donuts.

That will teach em

Edited June 4, 2011 by moneymakers

[HowboutthemCowboys]

Sure. Because someone worried about sugar is at a donut shop, naturally.

[WaterMan]

How many donuts did she down before the coffee?

[i_am_the_swammi]

Not sure why the sarcastic remarks? I think they settle this, because as a customer service-based business, they should serve the guest what is ordered, or verbally tell them they can't ensure their order will be processed as they requested.

 

We get it all the time in the hotel business....a guest with allergies asks for a hyper allergenic pillow.; a guest in our restaurants asks the waiter to make sure their food is not peanut-oil based. If we tell them its not, and we serve it against their request, we can be held liable. We even have to have insurance which covers such mistakes.

 

DD will be found guilty if this goes to trial.

[Big John]

.a guest with allergies asks for a hyper allergenic pillow.;

Why would a guest ask for a pillow that is super high in allergies?

 

They would ask for a hypoallergenic pillow instead.

[gbpfan1231]

Not sure why the sarcastic remarks? I think they settle this, because as a customer service-based business, they should serve the guest what is ordered, or verbally tell them they can't ensure their order will be processed as they requested.

 

We get it all the time in the hotel business....a guest with allergies asks for a hyper allergenic pillow.; a guest in our restaurants asks the waiter to make sure their food is not peanut-oil based. If we tell them its not, and we serve it against their request, we can be held liable. We even have to have insurance which covers such mistakes.

 

DD will be found guilty if this goes to trial.

Can they prove the sugar was in the coffee? It says she did not finish the drink - did she dump it out? I am struggling with how they will prove that the drink that was specifically given to this woman truly had sugar in it. if they do settle and this person gets any financial reward then what stops anyone from just sucking down a sugar packet and then saying it was D&D or McD's or whoever that added sugar to a drink??? Or maybe I am just being skeptical and nobody would really ever try to get something for nothing????

[Furd]

what stops anyone from just sucking down a sugar packet and then saying it was D&D or McD's or whoever that added sugar to a drink???

 

 

Because they might die?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Because they might die?

well we do no that diabetics are just faking it and leaching off the system.

[gbpfan1231]

well we do no that diabetics are just faking it and leaching off the system.

Yep - I wish I could live in your dream world. Everyone does the right thing - nobody cheats the system - all children can become successful if we just give them all the same chance.

 

Wait - that is not the real world.

[bpwallace49]

well we do no that diabetics are just faking it and leaching off the system.

 

They are clearly all parasites just laughing it up and taking advantages of poor sugar-lovin business

[gbpfan1231]

well we do no that diabetics are just faking it and leaching off the system.

No one ever said that - wake the Ginsu up.

 

You don't think that if people find a way to get around a system for a free handout that some people won't take it? It happens with probably every govt program we have out there.

 

All I was basically was saying is that there is probably no way to PROVE that it was the D&D coffee that caused her issue - did she keep the coffee? Do they have video of the guy handing her the coffee after seeing that he poured sugar in it? Why assume that the guy at D&D really did screw up her order? If he did then I am fine with some sort of legal action but I would like proof.

[bpwallace49]

No one ever said that - wake the Ginsu up.

 

You don't think that if people find a way to get around a system for a free handout that some people won't take it? It happens with probably every govt program we have out there.

 

All I was basically was saying is that there is probably no way to PROVE that it was the D&D coffee that caused her issue - did she keep the coffee? Do they have video of the guy handing her the coffee after seeing that he poured sugar in it? Why assume that the guy at D&D really did screw up her order? If he did then I am fine with some sort of legal action but I would like proof.

 

I am so sorry that this evil diabetic is clearly making you a victim.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Can they prove the sugar was in the coffee? It says she did not finish the drink - did she dump it out? I am struggling with how they will prove that the drink that was specifically given to this woman truly had sugar in it. if they do settle and this person gets any financial reward then what stops anyone from just sucking down a sugar packet and then saying it was D&D or McD's or whoever that added sugar to a drink??? Or maybe I am just being skeptical and nobody would really ever try to get something for nothing????

 

Not sure how they prove it, but I am betting DD doesn't want to risk the bad exposure to find out.

 

For arguments sake, suppose the lady did indeed die a few hours later. Would DD really try to argue that perhaps, in an effort to sue them for financial gain, she tempted fate by downing some sugar before going into their store?

 

Sorry, in a quick service and/or customer service business, the last thing you need is bad publicity...no way this ever goes to trial. They settle, and then put a disclaimer somewhere in their stores that personnel will "do their best to ensure the accuracy of the order, but cannot guarantee it".

[Big Country]

I am so sorry that this evil diabetic is clearly making you a victim.

 

Do you think there is no chance she is lying, or, at the very least blaming DD when there is a possibility they did provide her with the drink ordered and she took in the sugar elsewhere, either on purpose or on accident?

 

 

Obviously we don't have all of the details, but in a case like this, why is the burden of proof on the company to prove that they didn't do something? I suppose innocent until proven guilty no longer applies.

 

While I feel bad that this woman went through this ordeal, sure seems like a giant void of evidence, yet, I would agree that the most likely course of action is that DD will settle (as it is a lot cheaper than going to trial regardless if they are held liable or not) without admitting any wrongdoing, post additional signage as noted in a nearlier post of more likely only serve coffee black and make the customer put in creamer/sweetener.

[gbpfan1231]

Do you think there is no chance she is lying, or, at the very least blaming DD when there is a possibility they did provide her with the drink ordered and she took in the sugar elsewhere, either on purpose or on accident?

 

 

Obviously we don't have all of the details, but in a case like this, why is the burden of proof on the company to prove that they didn't do something? I suppose innocent until proven guilty no longer applies.

 

While I feel bad that this woman went through this ordeal, sure seems like a giant void of evidence, yet, I would agree that the most likely course of action is that DD will settle (as it is a lot cheaper than going to trial regardless if they are held liable or not) without admitting any wrongdoing, post additional signage as noted in a nearlier post of more likely only serve coffee black and make the customer put in creamer/sweetener.

VICTIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

That is basically what I was getting at.

[Furd]

Obviously we don't have all of the details, but in a case like this, why is the burden of proof on the company to prove that they didn't do something? I suppose innocent until proven guilty no longer applies.

 

The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. She must prove all of the elements of the case by a prepondence of the evidence. In a civil case, there is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" (a principle which applies in a criminal case.)

 

 

While I feel bad that this woman went through this ordeal, sure seems like a giant void of evidence, yet, I would agree that the most likely course of action is that DD will settle (as it is a lot cheaper than going to trial regardless if they are held liable or not) without admitting any wrongdoing, post additional signage as noted in a nearlier post of more likely only serve coffee black and make the customer put in creamer/sweetener.

 

A couple things: 1) you never come close to seeing all of the evidence in these little published snippets; and 2) some trials aren't all that expensive - I doubt that this one would be.

 

The media love these snippets - they lead to a lot of "Z-O-M-G the sky is falling on the American legal system" drama. People are quick to bash the plaintiff when they have no real idea of what happened at the restaurant nor do they know what has happened since the incident that led to the filing of the action.

 

I honestly don't know why one would have a visceral reaction to this case. I think that most people would believe that the woman deserves some compensation if indeed she had to be rushed to the hospital because an employee at DD's made a mistake. Maybe she's a bit negligent herself for allowing somebody to add things to her coffee if she is that sensitive to sugar, but should she have to carry sweetener packets around with her when DD says they'll make her coffee for her? In any event, we've read a few words from a lawyer that said DD served his client sugar and a few words from some corporate representative who doesn't deny it. How can one be so quick to jump on one side or the other?

Edited June 4, 2011 by Furd

[gbpfan1231]

The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. She must prove all of the elements of the case by a prepondence of the evidence. In a civil case, there is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" (a principle which applies in a criminal case.)

 

 

 

 

A couple things: 1) you never come close to seeing all of the evidence in these little published snippets; and 2) some trials aren't all that expensive - I doubt that this one would be.

 

The media love these snippets - they lead to a lot of "Z-O-M-G the sky is falling on the American legal system" drama. People are quick to bash the plaintiff when they have no real idea of what happened at the restaurant nor do they know what has happened since the incident that led to the filing of the action.

 

I honestly don't know why one would have a visceral reaction to this case. I think that most people would believe that the woman deserves some compensation if indeed she had to be rushed to the hospital because an employee at DD's made a mistake. Maybe she's a bit negligent herself for allowing somebody to add things to her coffee if she is that sensitive to sugar, but should she have to carry sweetener packets around with her when DD says they'll make her coffee for her? In any event, we've read a few words from a lawyer that said DD served his client sugar and a few words from some corporate representative who doesn't deny it. How can one be so quick to jump on one side or the other?

My opinion is that this should not even hit the media. It is very unfortunate that this woman had to be rushed to a hospital - i am also assuming that D&D did not intentionally screw up her order - I am sure it was an honest mistake and if it truly was an honest mistake then D&D should make amends and you would hope they would do so before a suit would even need to be filed???

 

I can't say for 100% sure but I would hope that if something happened to me from what appears to be a complete accident I would not try to get rich off it by filing a lawsuit - and before everyone jumps on me I am not saying that is what this woman is doing.

[millerx]

Not sure how they prove it, but I am betting DD doesn't want to risk the bad exposure to find out.

 

For arguments sake, suppose the lady did indeed die a few hours later. Would DD really try to argue that perhaps, in an effort to sue them for financial gain, she tempted fate by downing some sugar before going into their store?

 

Sorry, in a quick service and/or customer service business, the last thing you need is bad publicity...no way this ever goes to trial. They settle, and then put a disclaimer somewhere in their stores that personnel will "do their best to ensure the accuracy of the order, but cannot guarantee it".

+1

 

This was more of what I was thinking and the reason I posted, what I posted. Furthermore to my point....why do they have to put up a sign? We have signs for everything now. Does it make this more or less likely to happen? Absolutely not. Sometimes Sh*t happens! Human errors do occur, why the "f" does everyone have to place blame and sue for crap like this?

[lennykravitz2004]

Any chance Dunkin Donuts has video cameras in use at their stores, or at least this one?

 

As the son of a Mother who has Type 1 diabetes since I was born, I find some of my fellow Huddlers' comments somewhat.... "interesting". What I have seen her go through over the years, and the impeccable care she takes with this disease, has enabled her to live past the age of what her doctors told her almost 38 years ago. And if - if - in the end, she were to get poisoned (which is essentially what this amounts to in the end) like this, you're damn right I'd be suing.

[bpwallace49]

Any chance Dunkin Donuts has video cameras in use at their stores, or at least this one?

 

As the son of a Mother who has Type 1 diabetes since I was born, I find some of my fellow Huddlers' comments somewhat.... "interesting". What I have seen her go through over the years, and the impeccable care she takes with this disease, has enabled her to live past the age of what her doctors told her almost 38 years ago. And if - if - in the end, she were to get poisoned (which is essentially what this amounts to in the end) like this, you're damn right I'd be suing.

 

I agree.

 

However, If I was deathly allergic to something . . lets say peanuts. I would not be using peanut-flavored substitute in ANYTHING for fear that it could freakin KILL ME.

 

On one hand, you should reasonably expect your order to be correct. As others in the food industry can attest to, cross contamination can happen, and no food service is always 100% perfect. But why would you order something that tastes exactly like something that could potentially kill you? Drink your fking coffee black in the future . . lesson learned.

[millerx]

Any chance Dunkin Donuts has video cameras in use at their stores, or at least this one?

 

As the son of a Mother who has Type 1 diabetes since I was born, I find some of my fellow Huddlers' comments somewhat.... "interesting". What I have seen her go through over the years, and the impeccable care she takes with this disease, has enabled her to live past the age of what her doctors told her almost 38 years ago. And if - if - in the end, she were to get poisoned (which is essentially what this amounts to in the end) like this, you're damn right I'd be suing.

My mom has Type 1 diabetes also, just fyi, and she takes very good care of herself as well. Having said that, she makes sure she KNOWS what is going in her body. Like someone else mentioned, if you're not sure, you order it black and add it yourself. Diabetics along with others fighting debilitating diseases have to take extra precautions, it's just the way life is! Why does someone have to take the blame because the person with whatever illness doesn't follow through with taking those extra precautions?