A BC resident who cut her finger on a door at a Starbucks tried to take legal action against the coffee chain, but it didn’t go her way.
According to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute, the customer visited the Starbucks where the incident occurred on June 9, 2023.
The tribunal’s decision states that after the customer picked up her order, she tried to open the door out to the patio.
As the customer opened the door, she claimed she “cut the middle knuckle of their index left finger on the metal door frame.” She asked the tribunal for $2,800 for pain and suffering caused by the injury, but Starbucks denied it was liable.
The decision says that after the customer cut her finger, she asked a barista for a bandage. After that, she went to the bathroom, applying pressure to stop the bleeding, as the cut was “really bleeding.”
When she got home, she unwrapped their finger and put it on the bandage. She told the tribunal that later that night, her finger throbbed, and she had a terrible sleep.
The customer saw a doctor three times, and she provided clinical notes that were submitted as evidence. On June 16, 2023, she visited a walk-in clinic, and the doctor told her she had suffered a small cut without an infection. On July 5, 2023, she visited her family doctor, who told her that her wound had healed, but she said that the finger still felt tight and that the knuckle still hurt if bumped.
Finally, on October 18, 2023, her family doctor informed her once more that her wound had healed, yet she was still experiencing pain. She kept documenting her injury between June 2023 and January 2024. In her journal, she wrote about how it was still painful.
The customer told the tribunal she is a hairdresser and fitness instructor and that her jobs were painful following the incident. The tribunal accepted that, based on the pictures, the injury looked painful and would likely make it difficult for her to do her job-related activities.
Later, in June 2024, a doctor diagnosed her with PTSD due to how the injury was impacting her.
The tribunal didn’t deny her injury or the impact that it had, but it needed to determine whether or not Starbucks should’ve been held liable. Starbucks argued that the patio door wasn’t inherently hazardous, nor did it pose a known or foreseeable risk of harm. Four staff members provided statements supporting that argument. An inspection of the door further added support to that argument, as no jagged edges or inconsistencies were observed.
Ultimately, while the tribunal was sympathetic to her injuries, it dismissed the customer’s claims.