The Duty Of Starbucks

The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a negligence claim against Starbucks

One summer morning, Joslyn Nicole Spilsbury Schofield (Joslyn) was sitting at a table in the outdoor seating area at a Starbucks coffee shop when a runaway pickup truck crashed into the seating area, striking her and causing fatal injuries. Her estate and heir (collectively, the Schofields) sued Starbucks Corporation, stating claims for negligence, premises liability, and wrongful death, and generally asserting that Starbucks had not exercised reasonable care to protect patrons like Joslyn from, or warn them against, events like this. On Starbucks’ motion, the district court dismissed the Schofields’ complaint for failure to state a claim, and in addition it refused to allow the Schofields the opportunity to amend their complaint. It concluded that Starbucks had no duty to Joslyn to protect her from events like this, and it determined that any amendment to the complaint would be futile.

Conclusion

Businesses owe a duty of reasonable care to their customers, and this duty of care is well-recognized under Utah law. When a plaintiff invokes that duty of care in a complaint and grounds that invocation with allegations showing that the duty applies, dismissal for failure to state a claim on the issue of duty is improper. In this situation, disputes concerning the foreseeability of the alleged harm and the circumstances that gave rise to Starbucks’ purported failure to warn or protect Joslyn are questions that go to breach and proximate cause, and not to duty. Accepting the allegations in the Schofields’ complaint as true, Starbucks owed Joslyn a duty of reasonable care, and the district court’s determination to the contrary was erroneous.

(Mike Frisch)