ST. LOUIS —The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District has upheld a lower court's decision dismissing a lawsuit against Starbucks Corporation, Keat Properties, LLC, and McKnight Investors, LLC, in a case stemming from a 2020 crash where a vehicle drove into a Starbucks storefront, resulting in one fatality and multiple injuries.
The plaintiffs – Joseph Simmons, Jamie Lyerla, Dustin Epperson, Jason Young, Sidney Karl Young and Adrian Stein – brought negligence and premises liability claims against the defendants, according to the March 25 decision by the court.
They argued that the defendants had a duty to protect their customers from the negligent acts of third parties and that the parking lot configuration itself posed an inherent danger.
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, leading the plaintiffs to appeal.
In its ruling, the appellate court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments.
On the first point, the court found that the defendants had no legal duty to protect invitees from the negligent acts of third parties, stating that the 2020 incident was not foreseeable.
The court cited precedent that land possessors are not generally liable for third-party negligence unless they have reason to anticipate such acts.
The plaintiffs pointed to a 2010 incident where a vehicle struck the Starbucks building, but the court ruled that a single, dissimilar incident a decade earlier was insufficient to establish foreseeability.
Further, the court noted that foreseeability requires a pattern of similar incidents.
Citing previous cases, the court highlighted that Missouri law does not recognize a single prior incident as sufficient to impose a duty on property owners.
The court also found that the 2010 crash was not similar enough to the 2020 event to suggest a recurring hazard.
On the second point, the plaintiffs contended that the parking lot design itself constituted a dangerous condition.
The court dismissed this argument, finding no legal authority to support the claim that a standard nose-in parking lot with a sidewalk running parallel to the storefront is inherently hazardous.
It noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the parking lot’s configuration posed an unreasonable risk beyond ordinary commercial design.
The appellate court further emphasized that imposing liability under these circumstances would be against public policy.
It reasoned that property owners cannot be held responsible for every potential hazard posed by negligent drivers unless there is a known and substantial risk.
The ruling reinforced prior decisions that businesses and property managers are not insurers of their customers’ safety.
Additionally, the court acknowledged that Starbucks had proposed installing a protective site rail as part of a lease extension discussion in 2016, but the proposal never materialized due to unrelated contractual disputes.
The plaintiffs argued that this indicated an awareness of potential danger, but the court found that this did not equate to an admission of liability or a recognition of an imminent threat.
Richard J. Zalasky, Kristine H. Bridges, Todd I. Muchnick, James B. Wilmoth and Corey S. Berger represented the appellant.
Kara T. Stubs, Robert F. Chandler, Teresa M. Young, David P. Bub, Augustus T. Hayes and Tyler J. Finnegan represented the respondent.
Attorneys did not respond to requests to comment.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED112785