Essay on Joanne Mogavero( the plaintiff) vs. Starbucks Coffee Company

Starbucks Coffee Company v. Joanne Mogavero, the plaintiff

This essay aims to explain a business case and the problems it raises. The negligence lawsuit involving Joanne Mogavero (the plaintiff) vs. Starbucks Coffee Company and Lauren Spade is the specific case covered in this essay (Action News Jax, 2017). In order to discuss the case, an IRAC, or issue, rules, analysis, and conclusion, will be written.

Issue

The question in this case is whether the defendant side acted negligently enough to warrant paying the plaintiff compensation for their damages.

Rules

The rules that govern this case are those of tort law, namely the law of negligence. Negligence is careless behavior that falls short of sensible guidelines for protecting another person from a foreseeable risk that may cause physical harm (Bevans, 2009). There are four main elements in negligence. These are:

Duty of care

Breach of duty

Causation

Damages

Duty of care

The duty of care arises where the law recognizes that there is a relationship between two parties and therefore one party has a legal obligation to act accordingly in order to prevent causing harm to the other (Bevans, 2009).

Breach of duty

Breach of duty occurs when a person or entity that owes another a legal obligation fails to exercise reasonable care in executing the duty (Bevans, 2009).

Causation

Causation simply means that breach of the duty of care caused injury. Causation can either be actual causation or proximate causation. Actual causation occurs where but for breach of the duty of care the injured person would not have experienced an injury. Proximate causation occurs where the injury can be related to the breach of the duty of care (Bevans, 2009).

Damages

Failure to act reasonably must lead to real harm to the plaintiff. The injury suffered by the plaintiff should be such that it can be remedied by monetary compensation (Bevans, 2009).

Analysis

In resolving this case the actions of Starbucks coffee company needs to be reviewed. It is important to determine whether the Starbucks Coffee Company owed the plaintiff a duty of care. It is also important to determine whether the duty of care was breached and whether the breach led to physical injury.

Under the first element of duty of care, Starbucks coffee company is the owner of the business and therefore has a legal obligation to execute the duties of the business in a manner that may not cause harm to the customers. The store and its employee have a legal obligation to ensure that the customer is safe while on the business premises. This duty extends to the way the store packages its goods for the customer.

Under the second element of negligence, the store failed in its duty. The store owed a duty of care to Joanne Mogavero to ensure her safety while handling their products. The defendants failed to adequately package their product in a manner that is reasonably safe for the members of the public. The lid used was not adequate to secure the hot cup of coffee. This omission made it possible for hot coffee to spill and cause physical harm to the plaintiff. The failure to place a lid that is reasonably adequate posed a health hazard not only to the plaintiff but also to other members of the public. The store also failed to inspect the lid on the cup of coffee to determine whether the lid they were using on their cup of coffee posed a health hazard to their customers. The defendant also failed to warn the customers of the danger posed by their product. From the court’s proceedings, it was ascertained that the defendant knew about the defects of the lid but failed to act accordingly. This case is similar to a suit in New Mexico (Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, PTS, Inc) where under similar circumstances the plaintiff had received complaints from customers but failed to act on the issues raised (Coohran & Ackerman, 2004).

Under the element of causation, Joanne Mogavero suffered physical injuries when the lid of the coffee cup popped open and spilled its content on her.

Finally, under the element of damages, the plaintiff suffered physically and financially. This is as a result of actual and proximate negligence by the defendant She lost the ability to enjoy her life, her body was disfigured, she lost the ability to earn money and her previous health conditions were aggregated further. Moreover, she incurred medical and nursing expenses that led to a loss of her earnings. Furthermore, she suffered

Conclusion

Based on the facts of the case, Joanne Mogavero has a sustainable case of negligence against Starbucks Coffee Company and Lauren Spade.

References

Action News Jax. (2017, May 19). Jacksonville Starbucks lawsuit: Nassau woman awarded $100,000 for hot coffee spill. Retrieved from www.fox30jax.com: http://www.fox30jax.com/news/local/jacksonville-starbucks-coffee-spill-lawsuit-nassau-woman-awarded-100k-by-jury/524497652

Bevans, N. R. (2009). Tort Law For Paralegals. New York: Aspen Publishers.

Coohran, R. F., & Ackerman, R. M. (2004). Law and Community : The Case of Torts. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefied Publishers Inc.