Negligence in Tort

Running Head: Negligence in Tort
Negligence in Tort

Negligence In Tort
1
Table of Contents
Negligence case of Starbucks.....................................................................................................2
Facts of the case-....................................................................................................................2
Legal criteria-.........................................................................................................................2
Vicarious Liability.............................................................................................................2
Assault-..............................................................................................................................3
Special and General/Punitive Damages.............................................................................2
Actions arising for Plaintiff....................................................................................................3
Actions arising for Defendant................................................................................................4
Criteria....................................................................................................................................4
Tort Defenses.............................................................................................................................5
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................6

Negligence In Tort
2
Negligence case of Starbucks
Active link of the case- https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/01/04/ruling-in-starbucks-
lawsuit-clarifies-that-both-the-employee-and-employer-can-be-sued.html
Facts of the case-
In 2018, Ontario’s apex court allowed the appeal of a teenager to sue Starbucks as
well as staff over a scalding incident (Powell, 2018).
On March 14, 2015 Abigail Sataur, a teenager went to Starbucks at 52 Quarry Edge
Dr. in Brampton where she instruct the employee to pour mild hot water in a baby bottle. She
specifically asked them that water should not be too much hot. The name of the employee
was Jane Doe. She poured scorching boiling water in bottle and while doing so she accidently
overfilled the water, and that water went on the hands of Abigail, which resulted in severe
and permanent injuries to her. In the statement presented in the court, the Plaintiff, Abigail
Sataur accused Starbucks and its management of failing in taking care of customer, which
resulted in Abigail’s injury. The statement further said that Starbucks employed incompetent
servants and staff and it has not given appropriate instruction to its employees and techniques
for managing water temperature and handling of hot products. Now the plaintiff is asking for
one million dollars as general and specific damages and legal cost. The damages include the
cost of hospital, rehabilitation, headaches, mood changes and depression, which lead her
away from recreational and athletic activities.
Legal criteria-
Vicarious Liability- Vicarious liability is holding a person liable and accountable for
damages (compensation) or harm /injury caused by other individual (Vanduze, McInnes, &
Kerr, 2018). In Latin term, this concept is known as “respondeat superior” (Vicarious
Liability). Vicarious Liability is a compilation by three components -
1. There should be relationship between employer and employee;
2. There should be tortuous act;
3. The act must be done within in duration of employment.