Beebe Roh v. Starbucks Corporation
881 F.3d 969
7th Cir.2018Background
- At a downtown Chicago Starbucks, custom freestanding metal-and-concrete stanchions with ropes were used to direct customer traffic.
- On Feb. 9, 2013, two young brothers were playing on the stanchions/ropes; a stanchion fell and severely injured three-year-old Marcus, requiring amputation of his left middle finger.
- Parents Beebe and Lucas Roh had seen the stanchions when entering the store and were accompanying the children at the time; eyewitnesses reported the boys "jungle gyming" on the stanchions.
- Plaintiff (Beebe, on behalf of Marcus) sued Starbucks for negligence and premises liability, alleging failure to secure, inspect, or warn about the stanchions.
- Starbucks removed the case to federal court (diversity jurisdiction); the district court granted summary judgment for Starbucks, holding any duty to protect Marcus was abrogated by parental supervision.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, applying Illinois law on duty and foreseeability for child injuries and concluding the danger was obvious and parental supervision, not Starbucks, bore primary responsibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Starbucks owed a duty to Marcus to guard against the stanchions falling | Starbucks owed a duty because the danger might have been hidden and foreseeability is disputed | No duty: the danger was obvious and the parents, who saw the stanchions, had primary responsibility | Duty abrogated: parents' presence and awareness of stanchions relieved Starbucks of duty |
| Whether the stanchions presented a latent/hidden danger that Starbucks should have remedied or warned about | Rohs: the specific risk (tipping and amputation) was not foreseeable to them | Starbucks: obvious risk of injury from climbing/swinging made additional precautions unnecessary | Court: risk of harm from playing on stanchions was foreseeable; no latent danger shown |
| Whether Starbucks breached any duty (including active negligence) by using freestanding stanchions | Rohs: failure to affix stanchions or heed concerns made Starbucks negligent | Starbucks: stanchions were intended to be stable; no evidence they were defective when used as intended | Court: no evidence of faulty/stable-as-intended use; no breach shown |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Rohs: disputes of fact (foreseeability, hidden danger) preclude summary judgment | Starbucks: facts are undisputed and law favors judgment as a matter of law | Affirmed: summary judgment proper under Illinois negligence principles |
Key Cases Cited
- Kahn v. James Burton Co., 126 N.E.2d 836 (Ill. 1955) (rejects attractive-nuisance doctrine; focuses liability on foreseeability of harm to children)
- Mt. Zion State Bank & Trust v. Consol. Commc’ns, Inc., 660 N.E.2d 863 (Ill. 1995) (elements of negligence and duty analysis)
- Ward v. K Mart Corp., 554 N.E.2d 223 (Ill. 1990) (factors to determine duty: foreseeability, likelihood, burden, consequences)
- Driscoll v. C. Rasmussen Corp., 219 N.E.2d 483 (Ill. 1966) (parental responsibility can abrogate landowner liability for obvious dangers)
- Perri v. Furama Rest., Inc., 781 N.E.2d 631 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (distinguishes hidden dangers where parents were unaware of specific hazardous condition)