Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV02211, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 24CHCV02211    Hearing Date: October 3, 2024    Dept: F47

DEMURRER TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

 

Demurrer filed on 8/21/24.

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Starbucks Corporation

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Julia Witt, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Katherine Witt

NOTICE: ok

 

Demurrer is to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th causes of action:

            1.  Negligence

            2.  Strict Liability- Manufacturing Defect

            3.  Strict Liability – Design Defect  

            4.  Strict Liability – Failure to Warn

            5.  Negligence – Product Liability

            6.  Negligence – Duty to Warn

            7.  Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability

            8.  Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose

            9.  Negligent Hiring, Supervision or Retention of Employee

 

RULING: The demurrer is sustained with 30 days leave to amend.

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of injuries suffered by Plaintiff Julia Witt, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Katherine Witt (Plaintiff) when hot tea, purchased at one of Defendant Starbucks Corporation’s (Defendant) stores, spilled on her wrist.

 

Plaintiff, who was 15-years old at the time of the incident, alleges that on 11/2/23, she picked up her two drink order, a Venti Citrus Mint Tea (the hot tea) which was double cupped, and a Grande Praline Latte, which was not.  (Complaint ¶10).  Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant employee who handed her the drinks did not warn her of the hot tea’s scalding hot temperature.  Id.  Plaintiff exited the store and walked about one block when the lid popped off the hot tea and the tea spilled on Plaintiff’s wrist causing severe burns.  Id.

 

On 6/17/24, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Negligence, (2) Strict Liability- Manufacturing Defect, (3) Strict Liability – Design Defect, (4) Strict Liability – Failure to Warn; (5) Negligence – Product Liability; (6) Negligence – Duty to Warn; (7) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (8) Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose and (9) Negligent Hiring, Supervision or Retention of Employee.  After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues Defendant had with the complaint, on 8/21/24, Defendant filed and served the instant demurrer to the 2nd – 9th causes of action on the grounds that these causes of action fail to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and/or are uncertain.  CCP 430.10(e), (f).  Plaintiff has opposed the demurrer and Defendant has filed a reply to the opposition. 

 

ANALYSIS

 

Strict Liability – Manufacturing Defect, Design Defect & Failure to Warn (2nd, 3rd & 4th causes of action)

 

To hold a defendant liable for its product, plaintiffs must show a defect in the product that caused their injuries.  Scott (2014) 231 CA4th 763, 773. 

 

The opposition states that “[t]he manufacturing defect in this lawsuit is not the defectiveness of the lid or cup which was never alleged in the Complaint, but the manufacturing and serving temperature of the beverage which was intended for safe consumption and handling.”  (See Opposition, p.4:21-24; Complaint ¶24).  Plaintiff notes that “[a] manufacturing defect in the context of product liability is defined as a flaw in the manufacturing process that results in a product differing from the manufacturer's intended result or from other ostensibly identical units of the same product line.”  (See Opposition, p.4:8-13 citing In re Coordinated Latex Glove Litigation  (2002) 99 CA4th 594; Barker (1978) 20 C3d 413; Johnson (2015) 240 CA4th 22;  Garrett (2013) 214 CA4th 173). 

 

With regard to the 2nd and 3rd causes of action, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts which support a finding that Defendant defectively manufactured/made or designed the hot tea.  Plaintiff offers no facts to support the conclusory allegations that the tea was “overheated,” “dangerously hot,”  “scalding,” and/or “not at a safe temperature for human consumption or handling.”  (See Complaint ¶¶18, 24, 29).  It is common knowledge that hot tea is made with boiling hot water.  The gravamen of Plaintiff’s complaint is that the hot tea was served at temperature that was not safe for consumption and handling which sounds in negligence.  (See Opposition, p.4:21-24; Complaint ¶24).  The fact that the hot tea was manufactured/made in conformance to the manufacturer’s design or specifications is further supported by Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant should have warned of the high temperature, offered a cup carrier, or allowed the beverage to cool behind the counter before being served to Plaintiff.  (See Opposition, p.7:15-17 argument in relation to Plaintiff’s claim that the unreasonably dangerous temperature was not open and obvious to a 15-year old).   

 

The elements of a strict liability claim based on failure to warn are: (1) the defendant manufactured the product, (2) the product had potential risks that were known or knowable in light of the scientific and medical knowledge that was generally accepted in the scientific community at the time of manufacture, (3) the potential risks presented a substantial danger when the product is used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way, (4) ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risks, (5) defendant failed to adequately warn or instruct of the potential risks, (6) plaintiff was harmed, and (7) the lack of sufficient warnings was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.  CACI 1205.

 

It has been held that “[t]here is no duty to warn of known risks or obvious dangers.”  Chavez (2012) 207 CA4th 1283, 1304.  Further, widely known risks associated with hot beverages include that they can spill and burn skin.  See Shih (2020) 53 CA5th 1063, 1067.  The “obvious danger rule” is an objective test without regard to the product user’s subjective knowledge.  See Johnson (2008) 43 C4th 56, 65-66.  Plaintiff cites no authority for the proposition that a 15-year old, such as Plaintiff, does not have the capacity to understand the dangers that hot beverages can spill resulting in injury.  Further, making such a finding would place an undue burden on businesses – i.e., to verify the age of consumers before serving them hot beverages or risk being held strictly liable if minors spill hot drinks on themselves.

 

Negligence - Product Liability & Failure to Warn (5th & 6th causes of action)

 

As with strict product liability, under a negligent product liability claim, plaintiffs must also show a defect in the product that caused their injuries.  Scott (2014) 231 CA4th 763, 773.  However, under a negligence theory, plaintiffs must also prove that the product defect was due to the negligence of the defendant.  Id.; Chavez, supra at 1304-1305. 

 

For the same reason the strict liability claims fail, so do the negligent product liability and negligent failure to warn claims fail.  The hot tea was not negligently manufactured/made or designed because it was made as intended and designed – i.e., to be hot tea.  Plaintiff has also failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that Defendant did not warn of a particular risk for reasons which fell below the applicable standard of care.  See Chavez, supra at 1305; Webb (2016) 63 C4th 167, 181. 

 

Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability & Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose (7th & 8th causes of action)

 

In California, a plaintiff claiming breach of an implied warranty of merchantability must show that the product did not possess even the most basic degree of fitness for ordinary use.  Tae Hee Lee (C.D. Cal. 2014) 992 F.Supp.2d 962, 979.  Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to support the conclusion that the tea was “not safe or suitable for human consumption and/or transportation and did not conform to the quality established by the parties’ prior dealings or by usage of trade in that the beverage was scalding hot and likely to cause severe burns if transported and or consumed.”  (Complaint ¶59).  Rather, Plaintiff alleges that the tea was served too hot which sounds in negligence. 

 

Negligent Hiring, Supervision or Retention of Employee (9th cause of action)

 

Liability for negligent hiring will be imposed on an employer if the employer knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.  Phillips (2009) 172 CA4th 1133, 1139.  To establish a claim for negligent supervision, a plaintiff must show that a person in a supervisorial position over the actor had prior knowledge of the actor’s propensity to do the bad act.  Z.V. (2015) 238 CA4th 889, 902.

 

Plaintiff has failed to plead any specific facts regarding how Defendant negligently hired, supervised or trained any specific employee.  (See Complaint ¶75).  No facts are pled to show  that the incident was anything but a one-time occurrence.

 

CONCLUSION 

  

The demurrer is sustained with 30 days leave to amend.  Due to the liberal policy of allowing leave to amend and because this is only the original complaint, Plaintiff is given the opportunity to try to cure the defects in her pleading.