Roh v. Starbucks Corp.

881 F.3d 969

Beebe ROH, Mother and next friend of Marcus Roh, minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-4033

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued September 13, 2017

Decided February 2, 2018

William T. Gibbs, Attorney, Corboy & Demetrio, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Elizabeth A. Boratto, Andrew Kent Miller, Attorneys, Miller Law Group, Hinsdale, IL, for Defendant–Appellee.

Before Bauer, Rovner, and Sykes, Circuit Judges.

Rovner, Circuit Judge.

While Beebe and Lucas Roh were at Starbucks on Rush Street in Chicago, Illinois with their two sons Alexander and Marcus, a wood and metal stanchion fell onto Marcus Roh's finger. Marcus's injured finger had to be amputated that same day. Beebe sued Starbucks Corporation in state court on behalf of Marcus, claiming its negligence caused Marcus's injury. Invoking federal diversity jurisdiction, Starbucks removed the case to federal court, where the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Starbucks. Beebe appeals, and we affirm, concluding, as did the district court, that any duty Starbucks may have owed Marcus was abrogated by his parents' presence with him in Starbucks at the time of the accident.

I.

The day Marcus injured his finger, the Roh family was visiting a recently opened Starbucks store in downtown Chicago at the busy corner of Oak and Rush Streets. In its other stores, Starbucks has used varying approaches to encourage line formation and control crowds in the store; these methods include lightweight metal floor baskets placed strategically throughout the store, coffee stands, and occasionally (depending on customer traffic) stanchions with a round base and retractable belts that can connect to adjacent stanchions (like those often seen at airports and crowded venues).

This particular Starbucks, however, commissioned an individual named Paul D. Punke to create custom metal stanchions for placement within the store to direct the flow of customer traffic. Punke had previously worked for Potbelly Sandwich Shops, salvaging reclaimed furniture and artifacts for their metal stanchions, which were ordinarily made from salvaged posts from 1800's-era iron fences or stair posts. The Potbelly stanchions were connected by heavy chains and welded to a base attached to the floor so the weight of the chain did not tip the stanchion over.

In contrast to the stanchions affixed to the floor that Punke had created for Potbelly's, the stanchions in the Oak and Rush Starbucks were freestanding. Although the testimony on the precise reason is disputed, the parties agree that Starbucks initially did not want to affix the stanchions to the floor—either because it intended to first establish traffic patterns or simply for aesthetic reasons and to retain flexibility to move them when necessary. Whatever the reason, instead of welding a base that could be affixed to the floor, Punke added a heavy concrete base to the stanchions that could be removed at a later time if Starbucks wanted to permanently affix them to the floor. The stanchions were then used with ropes to control the traffic in the new store, as shown in this picture from the record:

(Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 51, Exhibit E.)

The Roh family visited the new Oak and Rush store on February 9, 2013, approximately two months after it opened. At that time, Marcus was three years old, and Alexander was five. Lucas and Beebe walked with the boys past the stanchions and ordered drinks. After receiving their coffee, the family went to the second floor to use the restrooms. When they returned to the main level and were exiting the store, Beebe and Lucas heard their son Marcus begin crying. Lucas, who had heard a loud noise immediately preceding Marcus's cries, saw that one of the stanchions had been knocked to the ground. He picked up a screaming Marcus and the entire family went immediately to their car parked out front and took Marcus to the Lurie Children's Hospital emergency room. Shortly thereafter, Marcus was taken by ambulance to the University of Chicago Medicine Comer Children's Hospital, where the Rohs thought doctors may be able to save Marcus's damaged finger.

The finger, however, could not be saved. Marcus's left middle finger was surgically amputated. Marcus also injured his left index finger, which was treated with the insertion of a pin that was later removed.

Although neither Beebe nor Lucas saw what caused the stanchion to fall and have never asked their sons what happened that day, the record establishes that the boys were playing on the rope and stanchions. Marcus remembers little in terms of specifics, but did answer in the affirmative when asked at his deposition whether he was "playing on a pole that day." His older brother Alexander testified that he thought they were playing on the poles because they were bored, and he thinks he was swinging on the ropes. Judd Luckey, a Starbucks barista working that day, recalled that the boys were "jungle gyming" on the stanchions, and that one of the boys climbed up onto the stanchion while his brother was "hanging on the rope." Another barista working that day, Nicole Paradis, remembers seeing Marcus and Alexander running around near the stanchions.

Jen Turner, who was the store manager for the Oak and Rush Starbucks, had expressed some concern about the stanchions on the final walkthrough of the store before it opened. At that time, she mentioned to the district manager, regional director, regional vice president, and several individuals from the design team (all there for the walkthrough) that although the stanchions were beautiful they should consider having them affixed to the floor so they would not have to worry about them falling over. Later Turner herself bruised her leg badly when she attempted to step over the stanchions and caught her foot in the rope, pulling the stanchion onto her leg. She e-mailed the district manager and the facility manager at the time to inform them that the stanchion had bruised her leg.

Beebe Roh initiated this action on behalf of Marcus in Illinois state court, alleging that Starbucks was negligent by failing to safely maintain its premises, to adequately secure the stanchion, to properly inspect it to ensure its stability, to warn patrons of the potential danger posed by the stanchion, or to realize that minor patrons would not appreciate the risk posed by the unsecured stanchion. Starbucks removed the action to federal court under the diversity statute, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, (given Marcus's injuries the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity of citizenship—Starbucks is incorporated in Washington with its principal place of business in Seattle, and Beebe is a citizen and resident of Illinois).

The district court granted Starbucks' motion for summary judgment, concluding that under Illinois law, Marcus's parents Beebe and Lucas, not Starbucks, bore the responsibility to protect Marcus from the obvious danger posed by playing on the unsecured stanchions. The district court also denied Beebe Roh's motion for reconsideration, clarifying that the claim against Starbucks failed under either an "active negligence" or "premise liability" theory.

II.

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, examining the record in the light most favorable to Roh and construing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in her favor. E.g. , Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ; Reed v. Freedom Mortgage Corp. , 869 F.3d 543, 547 (7th Cir. 2017). Summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In a diversity case such as this one, where neither party raises a conflict of law issue, federal courts apply the law of the state in which they sit. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williams , 832 F.3d 645, 648 (7th Cir. 2016).

To state a cause of action for negligence under Illinois law, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty, the defendant's breach of that duty, and that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's resulting injuries. Mt. Zion State Bank & Trust v. Consol. Commc'ns, Inc. , 169 Ill.2d 110, 214 Ill.Dec. 156, 660 N.E.2d 863, 868 (1995). Here the primary issue is whether Starbucks owed Marcus Roh any duty to protect him from the stanchion that toppled onto his finger. We conclude, as did the district court, that any duty owed Marcus by Starbucks was abrogated by his parents' presence with him in the store that day.

Whether a duty exists in a given case is a question of law to be determined by the court. Ward v. K Mart Corp. , 136 Ill.2d 132, 143 Ill.Dec. 288, 554 N.E.2d 223, 226 (1990). Illinois courts have recognized that the concept of duty in negligence cases is " 'involved, complex, and indeed nebulous,' " id. (quoting Mieher v. Brown , 54 Ill.2d 539, 301 N.E.2d 307, 308 (1973) ), but have identified the following factors critical to the inquiry: (1) the foreseeability of the injury; (2) the likelihood of the injury; (3) the difficulty of guarding against it; and (4) the consequences of putting the burden to guard against it on the defendant. Ward , 143 Ill.Dec. 288, 554 N.E.2d at 226–27 ; Harlin v. Sears Roebuck & Co. , 369 Ill.App.3d 27, 307 Ill.Dec. 825, 860 N.E.2d 479, 484 (2006).

Because Illinois has rejected the attractive-nuisance doctrine, generally landowners or occupiers in Illinois owe no greater duty to small children than the duty owed to adults. Kahn v. James Burton Co. , 5 Ill.2d 614, 126 N.E.2d 836, 841 (1955) ; Perri v. Furama Rest. , Inc. , 335 Ill.App.3d 825, 269 Ill.Dec. 834, 781 N.E.2d 631, 635 (2002). Instead, in premises-liability cases involving injury to a child, "the true basis of liability [is] the foreseeability of harm to the child." Kahn , 126 N.E.2d at 842. A child's injury will be deemed foreseeable to the...