## Facts

- Lynda L. Martinelli bought hot coffee in a lidded Styrofoam cup at a Dunkin’ Donuts drive-through in Malden, Massachusetts.
- She hurriedly attached an aftermarket plastic cup holder to her driver-side door by wedging its hook into a groove near the window; no installation instructions were provided with the holder.
- She placed the coffee into the holder without checking whether the lid was securely fastened.
- She noticed the cup might be too heavy for the holder and knew she would be burned if the coffee spilled on her.
- While driving, she kept two fingers across the top of the holder because it did not seem sturdy.
- When turning sharply into her driveway, she removed her fingers to steer; the coffee spilled and caused burn injuries.
- She sued multiple defendants; this decision addressed summary-judgment motions by the franchisee (Dant-Chris Corporation) and the franchisor (Dunkin’ Donuts Incorporated).

## Issues

1. Whether the franchisee and franchisor owed and breached a duty of care, including a duty to warn, regarding burn risks from hot coffee spilling in these circumstances.
2. Whether supplying hot coffee in a lidded Styrofoam cup at a drive-through was defective or unreasonably dangerous so as to support implied warranty liability.
3. Whether the defendants’ conduct constituted an unfair or deceptive act or practice under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A.
4. Whether the franchisor could be liable for the incident based on its franchisor status or operational control.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was allowed for both the franchisee and the franchisor on all claims before the court.
- The court dismissed the negligence, failure-to-warn, breach-of-warranty, and ch. 93A counts against the franchisee.
- The court dismissed the parallel claims and requests for declaratory relief against the franchisor.
- The ruling did not resolve claims against other defendants, including the cup holder’s manufacturer and sellers.

## Legal Principles

- A seller generally has no duty to warn of dangers that are open and obvious to an ordinary consumer; where the plaintiff recognizes the hazard, failure-to-warn theories also fail for lack of causation.
- Implied warranty liability requires evidence that the product, as supplied by the defendant, was defective or unreasonably dangerous beyond ordinary consumer expectations.
- Proximate cause is not established where the injury results from the plaintiff’s own intervening actions and the use of an aftermarket product unrelated to the defendant’s product.
- A franchisor is not liable for a franchisee’s alleged wrongdoing absent an independent basis for liability, such as evidence of relevant operational control tied to the incident.
- In the absence of actionable wrongful conduct, a ch. 93A claim cannot be maintained based solely on the sale of a commonplace product in an ordinary manner.

## Conclusion

The court held that, on the summary-judgment record, the risk that hot coffee could spill and burn was obvious and known to the plaintiff, the coffee as sold was not shown to be defective, and the spill was not traceable to any triable breach by the franchisee or franchisor; accordingly, it dismissed the negligence, warranty, and ch. 93A claims against both Dunkin’ Donuts defendants.


Martinelli v. Custom Accessories, Inc., 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 601 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002)