Negligence Lawsuit against Starbucks: Duty of Care, Breach, and Liability Analysis

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Negligence Analysis........................................................................................................................2
Risk Management Plan Assessment................................................................................................3
Source of the Article and other References.....................................................................................5

2BUSINESS LAW
Introduction
A teenage girl, Abigail Sataur from Ontario has sued Starbucks claiming that the
company and its employees have failed to take reasonable care to ensure her safety. It has also
been held by the plaintiff that the company has failed to take measures to prevent the injury,
which was foreseeable. The plaintiff claimed general and special damages of $1 million from the
defendant (Adriano, 2019).
In such case, the court in general evaluate the essential elements of negligence that
comprise of the duty of care of the defendant and its breach of such duty which has given rise to
an injury which was foreseeable. The court also takes into account the active risk management
strategy of the company that is meant to prevent the risks that the company may face (Luntz et
al., 2017).
Negligence Analysis
Under common law, negligence is established when a person who has a duty of care
towards another and he has failed to carry out such duty and it has caused a severe injury or loss
to the other person. It is also considered that whether the injury or loss was foreseeable by the
tortfeasor or not. In this case:
1. Starbucks had a duty of care towards its customer, Abigail for ensuring her safety in the
store while she was in the store.
2. The company certainly breached its duty of care as the employee did not take
precaution while serving her scalding hot water.