Williams v. Starbucks Date:, 2017 BCPC 27

Citation: Williams v. Starbucks Date: 20170201 2017 BCPC 0027 File No: 153074 Registry: Sechelt IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: SHAYLA WILLIAMS CLAIMANT AND: STARBUCKS CORPORATION DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S. MERRICK Counsel for the Claimant: James Mandick Counsel for the Defendant: Michael Gianacopoulos Place of Hearing: Sechelt , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: November 15, 16, 17, 2016; January 11, 2017 Date of Judgment: February 1, 2017 [ 1 ] Shayla Williams claims against Starbucks Corporation as a result of the tea that landed on her. Ms. Williams seeks damages for the significant pain and suffering that resulted from this incident. This is truly an unfortunate incident. Brief

Summary [ 2 ] On September 30, 2013, Ms. Williams, while in the front passenger seat of her mother’s vehicle, placed an order at the Starbucks drive-through located at the Tsain Ko Mall in Sechelt. Ms. Williams’ mother, Christina Buhlman, was driving and received the order: a tea, a hot water and a Panini. Both beverages were served in Starbucks cups with lids that had sleeves on them, which were handed to Ms. Buhlman by the Starbucks employee. Ms. Buhlman gave the tea and Panini to Ms. Williams. The cup of hot water was placed in the cup holder in the vehicle. Ms.

Williams put the Panini in her purse and held on to the tea. There was nothing unusual about the transaction. The tea cup and sleeve had printing on it warning that the contents were hot. After going through the drive- through, Ms. Buhlman drove through the mall parking lot to the store where Ms. Williams was working, approximately 100 to 130 meters. During this very short drive, Ms. Williams told her mother that the cup was very hot. Ms. Williams could only hold the cup in the area covered by the sleeve. [ 3 ] When the vehicle came to a stop, Ms.

Williams testified “the lid popped off” and the tea poured onto her, hitting mainly her left thigh and gluteal area, causing second and third degree burns. Understandably, Ms. Williams was in significant pain. She testified she was in shock when this happened. Ms. Williams was taken to the hospital and treated for her injuries. [ 4 ] Ms. Williams testified that she believed this happened because the tea distorted the cup causing the lid to become loose and fall off the cup. She acknowledged there was no “popping” sound when the lid came off. Ms.

Williams further testified that she was not squeezing the cup when the lid came off. The Claims against the Defendant [ 5 ] Ms. Williams asserts the following claims:

(1) The cup became distorted due to the temperature of the tea inside;

(2) The cup or lid were defective;

(3) The lid was not properly placed on the cup by the Starbucks employee; and

(4) The temperature of the tea was hotter than it should have been. The Defendant’s Position [ 6 ] Starbucks Corporation submits that Ms. Williams has the burden of proving the claims she asserts. The Defendant further submits that the Claimant has failed to meet the burden of proof for all of these claims. The Defendant argues that it does not need to prove how this incident occurred nor does it need to show that it could not be held legally liable. Did the Cup Distort; Were the Cup or Lid Defective in Anyway? [ 7 ] Ms.

Williams testified that she believed that she was burned because the tea was so hot that it distorted the cup causing the lid to become loose and fall off the cup. She says when that happened, the cup lost its structural rigidity causing the tea to come up and over the top of the cup and onto her. [ 8 ] That said, both Ms. Williams and her mother testified they did not see anything wrong with the cups nor the lids when they received them at the drive-through window. Other than Ms. Williams, there is no evidence to support that the temperature of the tea caused the cup to distort or warp. While I acknowledge Ms.

Williams presented the cup which she says was the cup she received, I am unable, by looking at it, to conclude it distorted as suggested by Ms. Williams. There is also no evidence to support the assertion that the cup or lid were defective. Essentially Ms. Williams’ position is that the evidence speaks for itself. [ 9 ] The Defendant submits that it is more likely that Ms. Williams either dropped the cup or knocked off the lid as she was removing the seat belt and/or attempting to pick up her purse, open the car door, and get out of the car while holding one or both drinks in her hands.

The Defendant further submits that this is consistent with the first written record made within an hour of the incident at the hospital which stated that Ms. Williams “dropped the hot tea on her groin/left thigh”. [ 10 ] Ms. Williams denies telling the nurse at the hospital that she dropped or spilled tea on herself. There are other conflicts in the evidence. Ms. Williams testified that she went through the drive-through shortly before she was to start work at 10:30 a.m. The Defendant’s computerized transaction

summary shows that Ms. Williams went through the drive through at 10:46 a.m. Ms. Williams testified that she was served by Ellen Rothenbush. The Defendant’s records indicate that Ms. Rothenbush did not begin work until 3:30 p.m. that day. Ms. Williams testified that she received tea in a venti size cup. The transaction

summary suggests that it was a grande size cup. [ 11 ] That said, given the excruciating pain that Ms. Williams was in, it would be understandable if she was wrong on some details. It is my judgment that, considering the computerized log in system the Defendant uses to track its employees’ hours, it is more likely than not that it was someone other than Ms. Rothenbush who served Ms. Williams and her mother at the drive through window. However, there is no issue that Ms. Williams was burned by the tea which she got from Starbucks, and Ms. Williams is adamant that she

did nothing to cause the tea to spill on her. [ 12 ] As noted there is no evidence to support the assertion that either the temperature of the tea caused the cup to distort or that the cup or lid were defective. Extremely hot beverages are served in these types of cups and lids on a daily basis without incident. [ 13 ] The onus is on the Claimant to show on the balance of probabilities, amongst other things, that the cup or lid were defective or the cup distorted and that the Defendant was negligent in failing to meet the requisite standard of care. Due to the fact she was driving, Ms.

Buhlman did not see the lid come off. Perhaps due to shock of this incident, Ms. Williams does not remember something that occurred just prior to the tea spilling. While it is possible the incident occurred as described by Ms. Williams, it is equally as possible it occurred as suggested by the Defendant. Without something supporting what Ms. Williams described, I am not satisfied that the incident occurred as described by Ms. Williams. I am therefore not satisfied the cup or lid became distorted due to the temperature of the tea, nor am I satisfied that the cup or lid were defective.

Was the Lid Improperly Placed on the Cup? [ 14 ] Sechelt Starbucks Store Manager Shannon Reid testified that Starbucks employees routinely perform tests to check the lids before handing them to customers at the drive-through window. She testified that this consists of the employee placing the lid on the drink and picking up the cup by the lid to ensure that it is firmly secured. She testified this would have been performed on the two beverages before they were handed to Ms. Buhlman. That said, there is no evidence before me that occurred on this occasion. However, both Ms. Williams and Ms.

Buhlman testified that they did not see anything wrong with the cups or lids when they received them at the drive-through window. Ms. Buhlman testified that she placed one of the cups in the cup holder of her vehicle without incident and that she gave the other cup to Ms. Williams without incident. Ms. Williams also testified that she held the cup on the short drive from the drive-through to her place of employment, blew air at the lid and did not notice anything improper about the placing of the lid.

I am therefore not satisfied that the Claimant has proven on a balance of probabilities that the lid was improperly placed on the cup. Was the Temperature of the Tea Unreasonably Hot? [ 15 ] I agree with the Defendant that it may serve tea that is hot enough to burn skin. Tea is expected to be served hot and the Plaintiff was candid and acknowledged that she was expecting hot tea.

The reality is that products may be inherently dangerous and capable of causing injury but that does not mean that they are defective nor does it automatically mean that if injury results from them that the manufacturer or seller is liable. Ms. Williams testified that the tea was too hot because it burned her skin in a way that she did not think it would. Ms. Reid testified that water in the machine at Starbucks is heated to 200 F and it is dispensed at 187 F.

She further testified that the temperature of the water is never above 200 F because the machine automatically shuts off once the water temperature reaches 200 . Ms. Reid’s testimony was that the water temperature at the Sechelt’s Starbucks location was within the industry standard and in accordance with Starbucks manuals. Ms. Williams acknowledged that prior to this incident that she was aware, tea and hot water, were hot enough to cause burns and that there were warnings on the cups and the sleeves she received, warning her that the contents would be hot.

The Claimant did not retain an expert to examine the equipment used by Starbucks nor did she retain an expert to analyse the temperature that Starbucks serves its beverages. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the tea was hotter than it should have been and thus I am not satisfied that the temperature of the tea was negligently or unreasonably hot. [ 16 ] Despite my sympathy for the Claimant who clearly suffered extremely painful burns, it is my judgment that she has not proven her case against the Defendant. Consequently, her claim is dismissed. The Honourable Judge S.

Merrick Provincial Court of British Columbia