Customer blames Starbucks for coat hook injury trauma in B.C. case
A customer attempted to claim damages of $5,000 against Starbucks in a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal hearing following an incident involving a coat hook.
According to the tribunal decision, the customer claimed he seriously injured himself on a coat hook under a table at a B.C. Starbucks location.
The customer claimed that the injury left a permanent scar, and his claim also included damages for pain and suffering resulting from the incident involving the coat hook. Starbucks, represented by an in-house paralegal, denied that the coat hook was a hazard. Starbucks even denied that the customer suffered a serious injury at all and also denied that he needed treatment.
On July 7, 2022, the customer visited the Starbucks location in question. The tribunal decision doesn’t specify the location of the cafe.
“He says he injured his abdomen on a coat hook under the table when he tried to stand up and collect his drink. He says that he was left with a permanent scar and has suffered physical and emotional trauma,” the tribunal decision states.
While the customer didn’t specify what his claim fell under, the tribunal suggested he was “making a claim under the Occupiers Liability Act (OLA). Section 3(1) of the OLA says an occupier of a premises owes a duty of care to ensure a person will be reasonably safe while on the premises.”
Starbucks provided a photo of the hook in question, showing that it would’ve been visible.
“I find that the coat hook under the table was not an unreasonable hazard under the OLA,” the tribunal said.
Starbucks stated that it had never experienced an issue with the hook before the customer’s claim. The tribunal added that the customer “would have avoided hitting the coat hook if he had taken reasonable care when standing up to collect his drink.”
The tribunal also determined that the customer never actually proved he was injured at Starbucks. While he did submit a photo showing a scar on his abdomen, the tribunal decided the hook didn’t cause it.
“Any injury he may have suffered at Starbucks was minimal.”
The tribunal dismissed the claims against Starbucks.
Something else worth noting is that someone with the same name as the person named in the tribunal case was arrested by New Westminster police back in 2022.
We’ve contacted Starbucks for comment.
- You might also like:
- Canadian restaurant chain ordered to pay thousands in B.C. case
- Vancouver Island cook fired without notice during probation fights for lost wages
- Starbucks is dropping its summer lineup of beverages across Canada