Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P went to a Starbucks store with her friend, and each of them ordered a cup of hot tea. When the two drinks were ready, P retrieved them from the store's pickup counter. Each drink had a lid and was “double-cupped,” meaning the cup containing the hot tea was inserted into a second empty cup. Neither drink, however, had a sleeve around the outer cup. When Shih picked up the drinks, she noticed they were “extremely hot.” P slowly carried the drinks, one in each hand, to a table in the store and set them down. P sat in a chair at the table, started talking with her friend, and removed the lid on her drink. P then attempted, while seated, to bend forward and take a sip from the open cup in front of her. P “tried to push the chair a little bit but the chair got pushed out more than [she] anticipated.” P “grabbed onto the table” to maintain her balance, which caused her drink to spill. She suffered second-degree burns. P filed this action against D for products liability and negligence. D filed a motion for summary judgment. D claimed it did not have a duty to warn of obvious dangers associated with a hot cup of tea. D also argued any alleged defect in the cup did not cause P's alleged injuries. D argued P could not prevail on her negligence cause of action because it was based solely on her allegation D provided a defective cup. P argued that a drink in a double cup instead of in a cup with a sleeve was a manufacturing defect. P submitted a copy of D's beverage resource manual, which stated that a “cup sleeve should be used” on most hot beverages and that “short water-based beverages … are the only cups that should be double-cupped, unless by customer request.” P argued the absence of a sleeve around the cup and the fact D “filled the cup” to the brim caused her injuries. The court granted D’s motions. It held that P failed to show there was a triable issue of material fact and that P could not prove the cup of tea had a manufacturing defect because D’s policy about when cups should include sleeves was “about reducing waste and customer preference, not about a manufacturing design,” and that neither the absence of a cup sleeve nor the high level of tea in the cup was a cause of P's injuries. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.