## Facts

- Tina Shih purchased hot tea at a Starbucks store.
- The tea was served with a lid in a “double-cupped” configuration (one cup placed inside another) and without a cardboard sleeve.
- Shih noticed the drinks were extremely hot, carried them to a table, and removed the lid from her cup.
- While seated, Shih leaned forward to sip, pushed her chair, and the chair moved more than she expected.
- Shih lost her balance, grabbed the table to steady herself, and the cup spilled onto her thighs, causing second-degree burns.
- Shih alleged the tea was unreasonably dangerous because it was served in a double cup instead of with a sleeve, was too hot and too full, and lacked adequate warnings.

## Issues

1. Whether Starbucks was strictly liable where Shih alleged product defects (cup configuration, temperature, fill level, warnings) but undisputed evidence showed the spill occurred when she lost balance and grabbed the table.
2. Whether Shih raised a triable issue that Starbucks’s alleged negligence (including any duty to warn or to use a different cup configuration) was a proximate cause of her injuries.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Starbucks.
- Starbucks negated causation by showing the alleged defects were not a proximate cause of Shih’s injuries.
- Shih failed to raise a triable issue that any claimed defect or omission was a substantial factor in causing the spill and resulting burns.
- The negligence claim failed for the same reason: any alleged breach was not a proximate cause of the injury.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when the defendant shows an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim (including proximate cause) cannot be established, and the plaintiff fails to raise a triable factual dispute.
- In strict products liability, the plaintiff must prove that a defect (design, manufacturing, or warning-related) was a proximate cause of the injury.
- In negligence, even if duty and breach are assumed or disputed, the claim fails without evidence that the alleged breach was a proximate cause of the harm.
- A seller’s duty to warn generally does not extend to dangers that are open and obvious to ordinary consumers; however, a court may resolve the case on causation grounds without definitively deciding duty.

## Conclusion

The court upheld summary judgment because the undisputed sequence of events showed Shih’s loss of balance and resulting contact with the table caused the spill, and she did not present evidence that the cup configuration, serving temperature or fill level, or any warning-related omission proximately caused her burns.


Shih v. Starbucks Corp., 53 Cal. App. 5th 1063, 267 Cal. Rptr. 3d 919 (Ct. App. 2020)