Suit against barista, boss can proceed, court rules

Case over teen’s alleged scalding at Starbucks focuses on whether employees can be held liable

A Brampton teenager who alleges that a Starbucks employee negligently poured scalding hot water on her hands, causing severe and permanent injuries, can proceed with her lawsuit against the U.S.based coffee giant, the store manager and barista, Ontario’s top court has ruled.

Abigail Sataur, with her father acting as her litigation guardian, is suing Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., a Brampton store manager and the barista for negligence over an alleged incident that took place on March 14, 2015.

Sataur was in the Starbucks outlet at 52 Quarry Edge Dr. in Brampton when she asked the barista to fill a baby bottle with warm water, according to the statement of claim filed in Superior Court. The barista is identified as Jane Doe.

“Jane Doe filled the bottle with scalding hot water and spilled the water on Abigail’s hands, causing severe and permanent injuries to Abigail,” the statement says. Abigail was 14 at the time and was filling the bottle for her niece.

Starbucks and its employees “failed to take reasonable or any care at all to ensure that the Plaintiff, Abigail Sataur, would be reasonably safe while attending Starbucks,” and to “prevent an injury to Abigail about which they knew or ought to have known.”

The statement goes on to say Starbucks employed “incompetent servants or agents and/or staff to ensure the safety of Abigail,” and failed to “instruct properly . . . their employees in proper methods and procedures to be used to regulate water temperatures and handle hot beverages.”

The allegations have not been proven in court and Starbucks has not delivered a statement of defence, but a spokesperson wrote in an email to the Star: “We are fully prepared to address the claims in that case as we believe our partners (employees) are not at fault.”

The teen, now 16, is seeking $1million in general and special damages and legal costs.

According to the statement of claim, the injuries to her hands and arms, requiring future hospitalization and rehabilitation, have also caused headaches, mood changes and depression, and have left her “unable to participate in recreational, household and athletic activities.”

Last year, a judge agreed to a request from Starbucks to strike the statement of claim against the manager and barista because it did not disclose a “reasonable cause of action” against either individual. The judge also sided with Starbucks that naming the pair was an abuse of process.

“The general rule remains that the employees are not liable for what they do within the scope of their authority and on behalf of their corporation,” the lower court judge wrote.

A Court of Appeal three-judge panel disagreed.

“Respectfully, the general rule is the opposite,” they wrote in a ruling released Dec. 22. “There is no general rule in Canada that an employee acting in the course of her employment cannot be sued personally for breaching a duty of care owed to a customer,” said the judges, who also rejected there had been an abuse of process.

They awarded $15,000 in appeal legal costs and $2,500 for the lower court costs.

Toronto lawyer Gavin MacKenzie, who argued the case with legal partner and daughter Brooke MacKenzie, and Douglas Strelshik, Sataur’s personal injury lawyer, said the Court of Appeal decision is important because it clarifies that a person who is injured as a result of employee negligence is entitled to sue both an employee and employer.

“Some lawyers and judges, including the motion judge in the Starbucks case, are of the view that if you are holding the employer responsible for the injuries you shouldn’t be allowed to also name as a defendant the employees whose negligence caused the injury. The Court of Appeal held that that is not the law.”

A practical implication of the decision is the plaintiff now has a right to examine for discovery, before trial, the employees and a Starbucks representative, he added. “Where the employer is a large corporation such as Starbucks, which is likely insured, the plaintiff is unlikely to enforce any judgment obtained against the employees.”

Courts are no stranger to hot beverage litigation.

Last year, a provincial court judge in British Columbia dismissed a law- suit filed by Shayla Williams who sued Starbucks after buying a cup of tea at a drive-thru. After a short drive, the lid popped off, causing second- and third-degree burns that the plaintiff attributed to a defective lid, its improper placement and the tea being hotter than it should have been.

“Despite my sympathy for the claimant who clearly suffered extremely painful burns, it is my judgment that she has not proven her case,” the judge wrote.

Williams’ lawyer, James Mandick, told the CBC he knew suing Starbucks would be an uphill battle.

“All over North America, they’re very successful at defending these claims,” Mandick said.

Also last year, a Denver, Colo., woman sued Starbucks over hot tea she claimed disfigured her and killed her dog.

That lawsuit, which attracted extensive media attention, was quietly terminated in December. The case was without merit and the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed it without any terms from Starbucks, the company’s Canadian spokesperson told the Star.

In 1994, a U.S. jury awarded an Albuquerque, N.M., woman nearly $3 million (U.S.) in almost entirely punitive damages after she spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald’s, sparking heated debate about personal responsibility and the prevalence of frivolous lawsuits.

But that infamous case, explored in an acclaimed 2011 documentary, turned out to be “popularly misunderstood,” Brooke MacKenzie wrote in email.

“As I understand it, in that case the plaintiff was willing to settle for $20,000 just to cover her medical costs — which were significant because she had third-degree burns over 6 per cent of her body, largely in her groin area, and had to undergo skin grafting treatment,” she wrote.

Because McDonald’s offered no more than $800, she had no choice but to go to court to obtain compensation.

“The jury found McDonald’s was recklessly disregarding the known risk of burns from the excessively hot temperature at which they served their coffee.

“McDonald’s had known for years that their coffee was so hot that it would burn someone seriously if spilled, and had settled numerous previous burn lawsuits.”

Such high punitive damages awards are unheard of in Canada, and no punitive damages are being sought in the Starbucks case, MacKenzie added in a followup email.