Shih v. Starbucks Corp., No. B299329, 2020 WL 4932836 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2020), as modified on denial of reh’g (Aug. 24, 2020)

Starbucks’ cups not defective and not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

Tina Shih brought negligence and product liability claims against Starbucks, alleging that a cup in which it served hot tea to her was defective, which caused her to spill the hot tea on herself and resulted in second-degree burns. Starbucks filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the alleged defect in the cup was not the cause of Shih’s burn injuries. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, granted Starbuck’s motion for summary judgment, and Shih appealed.

Shih’s hot tea cup had a lid and was “double-cupped,” meaning the cup containing the hot tea was inserted into a second empty cup. Neither drink had a sleeve around the outer cup. Once at her table, Shih removed the lid to her drink. Knowing her drink was hot, she tried to push her chair out a little so she could bend forward to take a sip. When she tried to push her chair out, it got pushed more than anticipated. She then grabbed onto the table to maintain her balance, which caused her drink to spill. Shih alleged that Starbucks failed to include adequate warnings that the drink was hot and that the cup itself had a manufacturing defect as it was in a double cup instead of in a cup in a sleeve in contravention of Starbucks’ own policies.

Starbucks’ motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court agreed that, although Starbucks’ conduct in serving Shih a full cup of hot tea without a cup sleeve may have set in motion a particular series of events that led to her spilling her drink, neither the failure to use a cup sleeve nor the level to which the Starbucks employee filled a hot drink generally increased the risk that Shih would accidently lose her balance while attempting to execute “the kind of unorthodox drinking maneuver” Shih performed here. In comparison, the absence of a cup sleeve may have increased the likelihood of other risks, such as burning her hand on the cup or being caused to drop the cup because it was too hot to hold. As such, the alleged defect was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (“Shih spilled her drink because, after she walked to the table with two hot drinks in her hands, put her drink down, and removed the lid, she bent over the table, pushed out her chair, lost her balance, grabbed the table to avoid falling, and knocked her drink off the table.”). Further, the court found that there was no inadequate warning as Starbucks did not have a duty to warn of obvious dangers associated with a hot cup of tea.

 

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2020 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.