Detailed Analysis: Starbucks Negligence Case - Managing the Law

This report provides a comprehensive legal analysis of a negligence case involving Starbucks, where a teenager, Abigail Sataur, was injured by scalding water due to the negligence of a Starbucks employee. The analysis covers the facts of the case, including the incident and the plaintiff's claims for damages. It delves into legal criteria such as vicarious liability, assault, and the types of damages sought (general and special). The report discusses actions arising for both the plaintiff and the defendant, potential tort defenses available to Starbucks, and the essential criteria for establishing liability in negligence cases. Key legal concepts like duty of care, breach of standard of care, and the requirement for proving damages are thoroughly examined. The report references relevant case laws and legal principles to support its analysis, ultimately concluding that Starbucks is vicariously liable for the damages suffered by Abigail due to the negligent act of its employee.

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.

Negligence In Tort
3
Assault-
Assault is when the accused intentionally causes the plaintiff to believe that offensive
is about to occur against him/her (McInnes, Kerr, & Vanduzer, Assault and Battery,
2018). In this case Jane Doe knew that the temperature of water is scorching high and can
lead to harm to Abigail if accidently it will come in contact with her body.
Special and General/Punitive Damages- General damages are those damages, which are
given to the victim for the direct and straight effects of the injury caused like mental pain,
physical injury and others as a compensation (Difference Between General And Special
Damages). Punitive damages are awarded to give punishment to wrongdoer or the accused
party (McInnes, Kerr, & Vanduzer, Punitive Damages, 2018). In this case, Abigail is clear
eligible for general damages as her hand got severe burns and got into depression due to
negligent act of Jane Doe. Hence, Abigail should get compensation in the form general
damages. Special damages are those damages, which are awarded for out-of-pocket
expenditure suffered by victim because of direct result of accused’s actions (Special &
General Damages in Your Personal Injury Case). In this case, Abigail incurred the expenses
of hospital, rehabilitation program and others and hence she is eligible for special damages.
Actions arising for Plaintiff
In this case, the doctrine of vicarious liability will be applicable as it is fulfilling all the
component of vicarious liability. Jane Doe was employed by Starbucks hence there was
employee-employer relationship, there is tortious negligent act by Jane Doe as she spilled
scorching hot water on Abigail’s hand and the negligent act done by Jane Doe was during her
course of employment as she was working in Starbucks outlet. Negligence means breach of
duty of care and in this case, Jane Doe negligently poured scorching hot water on Abigail’s
hand and hence Abigail is eligible for damages from Starbucks. There are all the elements of
tortious negligent in the case against Starbucks.

Negligence In Tort
4
Actions arising for Defendant
The main defense available for Starbucks in this case is that in Canada there is no rule
that an employee cannot be sued for negligent act or breach of duty of care towards customer
while in course of employment. An employee can personally be liable for careless act and it
is not on the company to pay damages to the customer. Starbucks can take this point as
defense and can ask Jane Doe to pay the compensation. Another defense available for them is
that the temperature of water set which makes their coffee different from other coffee brands.
It is one of their secret ingredients. There is mistake from both the sides because Abigail is
too partially responsible for the incident. This concept is known as Contributory Negligence
(McInnes, Vanduzer, & Kerr, 2018), as Plaintiff should have taken reasonable care, as she
knew that the water would be hot.
Criteria
1. The first criterion of establishing liability is duty. In the cases of negligence, the
outcome relies on if respondent owes an obligation towards victim. An obligation
arises when the law sees an association between respondent and the insulted party
requiring the prosecutor to act with a particular goal in mind towards affronted party.
Here, there is a relationship between plaintiff and defendant. The obligation
automatically arose when she defendant accepted to pour water into the bottle.
2. The second criterion of establishing liability is breach of that duty or standard of care.
It not sufficient to prove that defendant has duty towards him but he also have to
prove that there is a breach of duty due to omission of exercising reasonable care
(McInnes, Kerr, & Vanduzer, Breach of Standard of Care, 2018). In this case, there is
breach of duty on the part of Jane Doe who negligently poured water on Abigail’s
hand and causes severe burns.
3. The third criterion is damages. Mere proving of cause of reasonable harm is not
sufficient for plaintiff to claim damages; rather he/she should prove physical injury or
mental agony suffered by him/her. This criterion can be proved easily because Abigail
after getting water spilled on her hand got severe burns and then she was in hospital

Negligence In Tort
5
and rehabilitation center. She got physical and mental damage. She is eligible for
compensation (Elements of a Negligence Case, 2019).
Tort Defenses
Tortious liability in negligence is an exceptionally indistinct point which has advanced
through hundreds of years through various translations of case's by the legal advisers. They
chose them and attempted to set a rule for rest of the world to tail them thus as to privileges
of everybody is delighted in an equivalent way without somebody enduring in view of
activities of another's careless direct and on the off chance that one suffers, at that point he
could have solution for misfortune endured by him. The elements required for negligence was
stated in the case Lochgelly and Coal Co ltd v McMullan (Lochgelly amd Coal Co. ltd v.
McMullan, 1933). These elements are i) there should be a duty of care towards plaintiff by
defendant; ii) infringement of obligation; iii) physical or mental damage due to duty
(Negligence-Tort, 2019). It can be inferred from above stated points and case laws that
Starbucks is vicariously liable to pay special and general damages to Abigail as she had
suffered physical as well as mental injury because of negligent act of Starbucks employee
Jane Doe. All the elements of tortious negligent act are present in the present case. There is
convincing proof of misfortunes and loss which makes Abigail’s case more stronger. She had
all the medical bills with her, which were incurred due to the accident. Claim for general
damages is more difficult because it is very hard to prove the value of or estimation of pain
and suffering.

Negligence In Tort
6
Bibliography
Lochgelly amd Coal Co. ltd v. McMullan, 4 (UKHL 1933).
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, 360309 (Bernalillo County August 18, 1994).
Negligence Tort at a Glance. (2017). Retrieved 2019, from laws:
https://tort.laws.com/negligence-standard-of-conduct/negligence-tort
Elements of a Negligence Case. (2019). Retrieved 2019, from FindLaw:
https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/elements-of-a-negligence-case.html
Negligence-Tort. (2019). Retrieved 2019, from Lawaspect.com:
https://lawaspect.com/negligence-tort/
Difference Between General And Special Damages. (n.d.). Retrieved 2019, from Accidenta
Claims Advice: https://www.accidentclaimsadvice.org.uk/difference-between-general-and-
special-damages/
McInnes, Kerr, & Vanduzer. (2018). Assault and Battery. In Managing the Law (p. 83).
Ontario: Peasron.
McInnes, Kerr, & Vanduzer. (2018). Breach of Standard of Care. In Managing the Law (p.
145). Ontario: Perason.
McInnes, Kerr, & Vanduzer. (2018). Punitive Damages. In Managing the Law (p. 74).
Ontario: Pearson.
McInnes, Vanduzer, & Kerr. (2018). Contributory Negligence. In Managing the Law (p.
100). Ontario: Pearson.

Negligence In Tort
7
Powell, B. (2018). Court gives Ontario teen green light to sue both Starbucks and staff over
scalding incident. Retrieved 2019, from The Star:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/01/04/ruling-in-starbucks-lawsuit-clarifies-that-both-
the-employee-and-employer-can-be-sued.html
Special & General Damages in Your Personal Injury Case. (n.d.). Retrieved 2019, from All
Law: https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/special-general-damages.html
Vanduze, McInnes, & Kerr. (2018). Vicarious Liability. In Managing the Law (p. 69).
Ontario: Pearson.
Vicarious Liability. (n.d.). Retrieved 2019, from Legal Dictionary:
https://legaldictionary.net/vicarious-liability/

Negligence In Tort
8