Starbucks Outsourced Weeding Damages Car; Woman Wins Appeal, Awarded Over 50,000 Yuan

(CNA, reporter Hong Xueguang, Kaohsiung, July 1) Ms. Yang drove to a Starbucks store in Kaohsiung, and her car was damaged by gravel kicked up by an outsourced weeding crew while parked in the lot. The first-instance judge initially ruled Starbucks was not liable, but the Kaohsiung District Court's second-instance ruling found negligence in site management and ordered compensation of over 56,000 yuan, which is final.

The Kaohsiung District Court civil judgment stated that Ms. Yang drove her car to a Starbucks store in Kaohsiung City on the morning of March 26, 113 (2024) and parked it in the store's complimentary parking lot. Starbucks commissioned outsourced personnel to perform lawn maintenance that afternoon. During the operation of the lawnmower, gravel was sprayed from the ground, causing damage to multiple parts of Ms. Yang's car, including the left fog light, radiator grille, hood, and right side door. Ms. Yang, dissatisfied with Starbucks' failure to ensure the safety of its ancillary facilities, filed a lawsuit seeking NT$205,588 in damages under the Consumer Protection Act.

During the first-instance trial at the Kaohsiung District Court's Kaohsiung Simple Court, the business claimed that the gardening company was an independent contractor, not an employee, and that a sign stating "We are not responsible for the safekeeping of vehicles" was posted in the parking lot. The first-instance judge, after examining the relevant evidence, found that although the sound of flying stones hitting the car was recorded, the repair estimate provided by Ms. Yang was nearly half a month after the incident, making it difficult to prove that all other damage to the car was caused by the weeding. Furthermore, the parking lot was not a space customers had to pass through to shop and was not within the scope of consumer services managed by Starbucks. Based on this, the court ruled against Ms. Yang.

After Ms. Yang appealed, the second-instance judge at the Kaohsiung District Court inquired with the car wash where Ms. Yang regularly took her car and confirmed that the vehicle had no damage when it entered the car wash before the incident. The day after the incident, when the car was washed, multiple marks were discovered, and the car body was covered in grass clippings and sap. The court determined that the car damage was indeed related to the weeding operation.

Regarding the scope of application of the Consumer Protection Act, the second-instance judge held that Starbucks' provision of a free parking lot for consumers is itself part of the services provided by the business operator. Weeding operations carry potential risks, and Starbucks, according to law, should have posted warning signs in conspicuous places but failed to do so, causing consumers to miss the opportunity to move their vehicles to avoid risk. Therefore, there was clear negligence in site management. The disclaimer notice could only exempt safekeeping responsibilities and could not be used to evade liability for failure to properly maintain the site.

Considering that Starbucks provided free parking services and did not provide advance notice of the weeding, although there was management negligence, it did not reach the level of gross negligence. Therefore, based on the Consumer Protection Act, the court ordered punitive damages, repair costs, and Ms. Yang's transportation expenses, modifying the judgment to require compensation of 56,846 yuan. The case is now final. (Editor: Zhang Yajing) 1150701

Stand with the facts. Your every contribution is a force to protect press freedom.

Download the CNA "One-Stop News" APP for real-time updates.

Text, images, and videos on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, publicly transmitted, or used without authorization.