Fort Lauderdale

Jury Deliberations Underway in ‘Hot' Nugget Suit Against South Florida McDonald's Franchise

The family’s lawyers argued in court McDonald’s and its franchise didn’t provide any warning, alleging the nuggets were served at an “unreasonably hot” temperature

NBC Universal, Inc.

A Fort Lauderdale jury heard closing arguments Wednesday in a 2019 lawsuit that alleges "unreasonably and dangerously" hot chicken nuggets were served in a "Happy Meal" at a local McDonald's franchise causing a serious burn to a then 4-year-old girl.

The child's parents, Philana Holmes and Humberto Caraballo Estevez, told NBC6 Holmes took their daughter to the McDonald's franchise located at 7600 Northwest 57th Street in Tamarac.

Watch NBC6 free wherever you are

Watch button  WATCH HERE

NBC6 spoke with Holmes a few months after the incident.

She said after the employee gave her the six-piece Chicken McNuggets Happy Meal, she handed the box directly to her daughter who was sitting in a child's seat in the backseat. Video from court shows Holmes in the store’s drive-thru and handing the meals. Then, she said "I hear a scream and I turn around and it is my daughter."

Get local news you need to know to start your day with NBC 6's News Headlines newsletter.

Newsletter button  SIGN UP

She said she saw the chicken nuggets in her daughter's lap and immediately started knocking the food off of her and pulled the car over.

"I take off her seat belt and wedged in between the seat belt, because it is a 5-point harness, it is a chicken nugget I wasn't able to reach," Holmes said. "It is sitting on her thigh."

She said she noticed her daughter's leg was welted and red. She rushed her daughter home and then she and her husband took their daughter to the emergency room where she was treated for burns.

"You never want to see your child in pain, and that is how I felt, just helpless," Holmes said.

"I just hope that it doesn't ever happen to anyone out there again," Caraballo Estevez added.

The lawsuit is seeking damages in excess of $15,000 and lists both the McDonald's Corporation and the franchisee Upchurch Foods, Incorporated (also known as Upchurch Management).

The family’s lawyers argued in court McDonald’s and its franchise didn’t provide any warning, alleging the nuggets were served at an “unreasonably hot” temperature.

"This should never have happened to a child, let alone from a chicken nugget," said the family’s attorney John Fischer.

"If you have to do it," said Fischer, talking about temperature for food safety, "… It's no different than eating a meal at a Mexican restaurant and you sit down and before you get your food they say 'hot plate.'"

McDonald’s attorneys argued this was not their fault, saying food safety is a top priority and the burn was out of their control.

"The bottom line is this, chicken McNuggets are meant to be eaten. They're a finger food. They're not meant to be pressed up against your skin for two minutes," said the company’s attorney Scott Yount.

McDonald’s USA also sent NBC6 a statement:

"We take every complaint seriously and certainly those that involve the safety of our food and the experiences of our guests. This matter was looked into thoroughly. Ensuring a high standard for food safety and quality means following strict policies and procedures for each product we cook and serve. Those policies and procedures were followed in this case and we therefore respectfully disagree with the plaintiff’s claims. Together with our franchisees, we have made food safety a top priority for nearly 70 years, ensuring that our customers can rely on McDonald’s for safe and quality food.”

The franchise, Upchurch Foods, also denied the allegations in court filings saying they bear "no responsibility for any injuries or damages" that the child "may have sustained."

When the lawsuit was filed in 2019, Upchurch Management told NBC6, "The safety of our customers and employees is a top priority for our organization. Each day, we seek to provide a pleasant dining experience for those who choose to visit our restaurants."

It’s not clear how long the judge will let the jury continue to deliberate Wednesday before bringing them back Thursday.

Contact Us