We have all heard the classic personal injury story about a customer who buys a hot beverage at the drive-thru, spills the beverage on themselves causing severe burns and then sues the company for negligence.
It’s never actually happened though, right?
The Provincial Court of British Columbia, in Williams v. Starbucks, 2017 BCPC 0027, recently heard a case quite similar to the one above. The Plaintiff purchased a tea, among other items, from a Starbucks drive-thru, and as she held the tea and drove through the parking lot, the lid “popped off” and spilled into her lap. The Plaintiff suffered second and third-degree burns on her left thigh and gluteal area. The Plaintiff subsequently sued Starbucks, claiming that the cup became distorted by the temperature of the liquid, that the cup or lid was defective, that the lid was not properly placed on the cup by the Starbucks employee and that the temperature of the tea was hotter than it should have been.
The Plaintiff subsequently sued Starbucks, claiming that the cup became distorted by the temperature of the liquid, that the cup or lid was defective, that the lid was not properly placed on the cup by the Starbucks employee and that the temperature of the tea was hotter than it should have been. As with any negligence claim, the onus is on the Plaintiff to show that the Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty of care and breached the standard of care. The Defendant stated this, noting that it is not the Defendant’s responsibility to prove how or why the incident occurred, but that it was the Plaintiff’s responsibility to prove that the cup or liquid was defective or unsafe.
As with any negligence claim, the onus is on the Plaintiff to show that the Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty of care and breached the standard of care. The Defendant stated this, noting that it is not the Defendant’s responsibility to prove how or why the incident occurred, but that it was the Plaintiff’s responsibility to prove that the cup or liquid was defective or unsafe.
After a review of the evidence, including an inspection of the cup and lid, the Court determined that the Defendant did not breach the standard of care owed to the Plaintiff. The cup had a warning that it contained a hot liquid, was covered by a cardboard sleeve to protect the hand of the customer and the Court noted that there was no evidence that the cup or lid had was or had become defective.Sometimes accidents are just accidents, like the case above; however, sometimes accidents happen due to the actions or inactions of others. If you’ve been involved in an accident or an incident where you suffered personal injury or damage, please contact one of our experienced personal injury lawyers for a consultation.
Sometimes accidents are just accidents, like the case above; however, sometimes accidents happen due to the actions or inactions of others. If you’ve been involved in an accident or an incident where you suffered personal injury or damage, please contact one of our experienced personal injury lawyers for a consultation.
Geoffrey Kowalski
Articled Clerk
geoff.kowalski@keymurraylaw.com
902-368-7822
Legal information appearing in this article and elsewhere on Key Murray Law’s website is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for or replace any legal or other professional advice. If you have specific concerns or a situation in which you require legal advice, you should consult directly with one of our lawyers.
