Man says he wounded his abdomen when he stood up to fetch his drink
The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal has ruled that the Starbucks Corporation did not breach BC’s Occupiers Liability Act, 1996, in relation to a claim for damages for alleged scarring from a coat hook in one of its coffee shops.
In Bouazza v. Starbucks Coffee Canada, Inc, 2025 BCCRT 1038, the applicant claimed $5,000 in damages for an incident in a Starbucks café on July 7, 2022.
He alleged that he injured his abdomen on a coat hook under a table when he attempted to stand and collect the drink he ordered. He said the injury left a permanent scar and caused him pain, suffering, and physical and emotional trauma.
Starbucks denied that:
- The coat hook was a hazard
- The applicant sustained a serious injury in its coffee shop
- He needed any treatment for the alleged injury
In the present civil proceeding, the issue was whether Starbucks had to compensate the applicant for his claimed injury.
Under s. 3(1) of the Occupiers Liability Act (OLA), an occupier owes a duty of care to ensure the reasonable safety of a person on its premises.
In Stoeff v. Stephenson, 2025 BCSC 737, the Supreme Court of British Columbia explained that this standard did not require perfection or a guarantee of safety. Rather, it required the injured person to have a modicum of awareness.
No breach found
The Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia dismissed the applicant’s claims. The tribunal ruled that he failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that Starbucks violated the OLA.
First, the tribunal accepted that the applicant was making an OLA claim, even though he failed to specify this.
Next, the tribunal ruled that the applicant would have avoided hitting the coat hook under the table if he had been reasonably careful when standing to get his drink.
The tribunal held that the coat hook was not an unreasonable hazard under the OLA and was obviously visible, as shown in a photograph Starbucks provided. The tribunal noted the lack of any other incidents concerning this coat hook.
Lastly, the tribunal determined that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered an injury at Starbucks.
The tribunal acknowledged that the applicant gave photographic evidence of a small scar on his abdomen. However, the tribunal decided that contact with the coat hook did not cause any scarring on his abdomen, and any injury he might have sustained at Starbucks was minimal.
The tribunal noted that:
- A July 8, 2022 record by an urgent care clinic doctor found “no erythema or ecchymosis” or no redness, discoloration, or scarring on the applicant’s abdomen
- A July 1, 2023 record by a nurse practitioner found no visible discoloration or scarring on his abdomen
