Commercial Law (LGST 369) Assignment: Starbucks Case Analysis

This commercial law assignment analyzes the case of Sataur v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., focusing on the issue of whether an employee can be held personally liable for injuries related to lawsuits filed against the company. The assignment examines the concept of vicarious liability, referencing key cases such as Bazley v Curry, London Drugs Ltd. v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., and Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd. The analysis applies these legal principles to the Starbucks case, where a barista's negligence resulted in injury to a customer. The assignment concludes that the barista can be held personally accountable for the injury, emphasizing the importance of employee awareness regarding their potential liability for negligence during their employment. The analysis incorporates the Salmond test, the two-step process from London Drugs, and the 'relative closeness' principle from Lister to determine the extent of liability.

Running head: COMMERCIAL LAW
COMMERCIAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COMMERCIAL LAW
Issue
The chief issue in the case of Sataur v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 1017
that had to be decided, was whether an employee of a company can be held personally liable in
relation to lawsuits filed against the company itself, regarding private injury.
Rule
The rule as provided in the case of Bazley v Curry, [1999] 2 SCR 534, provides a
discussion regarding the concept of vicarious liability. In this case, the Court stated that an
organization shall be held accountable vicariously for any act of its employee. In this case, the
Salmond test was discussed. According to this test, an employer shall be accountable for the acts
performed by an employee if such acts are sanctioned by the employer itself. This test states that
even when the actions that are performed by an employee are not sanctioned by the employer,
however such actions are so closely linked to the sanctioned acts that such actions may be
measured as a mode of the actions that are sanctioned by employer. In the given case, the Court
did not accept the idea as provided in the Salmond test. A clarification was provided by the Court
in relation to the test. The clarification states that the Court should comprehend regarding the
policy reasons that determines that whether the concept of vicarious liability should be applied or
not. The clarification also provides that the Court should comprehend in relation to the fact that
whether the action that is wrongful is adequately connected to the employment, which might
justify the imposition of the vicarious liability. The Court specifically mentioned that the
applicability of the concept of vicarious liability shall be suitable only if there is a noteworthy
link between the formation or augmentation of the risk and the wrong that is the consequence of

2COMMERCIAL LAW
the risk. The occurrence of the wrong on the property of the company through related
connections cannot be considered as sufficient cause for vicarious liability.
In the case of London Drugs Ltd. v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., [1992] 3 SCR
299, a decision was provided in relation to vicarious liability of an employer. In this case, a two-
step process or test was forwarded in relation to the exclusion of employees from accountability
involving any risk. These two steps are; firstly, the benefits regarding the limitation in relation to
the liability clause must extend to the employees who are pursuing to depend on it. It may be in
an implied or an expressed manner. Secondly, the employees were performing their actions
during their employment course and the performance of the actions included the provision of
services, which were mentioned in the contract between the employer and the employee during
the occurrence of the loss. If the above-mentioned criteria are met, then the employees shall not
be held accountable and shall be omitted from their accountability.
In the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22, provided discussions in
relation to the vicarious liability of employers for any wrong committed by their employees. In
this case, it was established that the ‘relative closeness’ that connects the tort and the nature of
the employment of an individual shall be the basis of deciding the matter of accountability.
Application
In the case of Sataur v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 1017, Abigail Sataur
suffered an injury after a barista of the Starbucks dropped boiling hot water on the hands of
Abigail Sataur. Sataur began a claim regarding negligence against the barista, the Starbucks and
the manager of the store. The allegation forwarded by Abigail Sataur was that the defendants
separately owed a duty of care to Abigail Sataur and each of the defendants were privately

3COMMERCIAL LAW
accountable for the violation of the duty of rational care towards her. A motion was forwarded
by Starbucks to attack the Declaration of Claim against the manager of the store and the barista
that was granted.
Applying the rule as provided in the case of Bazley v Curry, [1999] 2 SCR 534, it may be
stated that the accountability of an employer in relation to the concept of vicarious liability shall
be decided based on a noteworthy connection between the formation and augmentation of the
risk and the wrong that results from the risk. It shall not matter even if the wrong was committed
on the property of the company. In the situation as provided in Sataur v Starbucks Coffee
Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 1017, it can be said that though the wrong was committed by the
barista on the property of Starbucks when the barista dropped boiling water on the hands of
Abigail Sataur, it cannot be concluded that the employer has to be accountable for such action of
the barista. It must be researched that whether any noteworthy connection was present between
the formation of the risk and the injury caused to Abigail Sataur through the actions of the
barista.
The rule as provided in the case of London Drugs Ltd. v Kuehne & Nagel International
Ltd., [1992] 3 SCR 299 shall be applied. Applying this rule it can be said that an employee who
is acting during the course of the employment can be sued privately for the violation of the duty
of rational care towards the customer. According to statements made in this case, the idea of
vicarious liability of an employer regarding the conduct of an employee and the private
accountability of the employee because of the negligence committed by the employee are not
jointly exclusive. The two ideas may coexist according to the laws of the nation of Canada.
Therefore, in the case of Sataur v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 1017, the barista,
that is, the employee of the Starbucks Company, shall be held privately accountable for the

4COMMERCIAL LAW
wrong committed by him. It can be said that the employees of any organization shall be made
aware in relation to the fact that they may be held privately accountable for any kind of
negligence that may arise during the time when they are on duty according to the provisions of
the employment contract.
The rule as provided in the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 shall also
be applied in the given situation of Sataur v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 1017. In
the Lister case, it was provided that a ‘relative closeness’ must be established in order to make an
employer accountable for the actions of the employee. Hence, in the Starbucks case, it can be
said that based on the closeness of the act committed by the barista and the nature of the
employment of the barista, the barista may be held privately responsible for dropping boiling
water on the hands of Abigail Sataur. The duty of rational care that the barista owed towards
Abigail Sataur was violated and therefore shall be held private accountable for the wrong
committed.
Conclusion
Therefore, in order to conclude, it can be said that the barista, employed as an employee
in the Starbucks, can be privately held accountable for the wrong committed, that is, the
dropping of boiling water on the hands of Abigail Sataur.

5COMMERCIAL LAW
References
Bazley v Curry, [1999] 2 SCR 534
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22
London Drugs Ltd. v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., [1992] 3 SCR 299
Sataur v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 1017