It’s a common scene at coffee shops and cafes across the country: customers sipping their coffee while tapping away on their laptops or tablets or browsing on their smart phones. The prime real estate is a spot next to the outlets to so that their devices don’t run out of jounce, but the charger wires can present a tripping hazard for unwary customers or employees.

Generally, under New York law, landowners are responsible to maintain their property in a safe condition. But a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous.

In the case of Chaney v. Starbucks Corp.,  plaintiff was a regular patron at a particular Starbucks location in the Bronx. When he entered Starbucks on the date of his accident, he saw that another customer in the seating area had plugged a white electrical charger,  flat against the orange tile floor, into an outlet. Plaintiff sat near that customer, but when he was leaving he stepped on the charger, fell and allegedly was injured. He sued Starbucks alleging negligence in the maintenance of the premises.

In awarding Starbucks summary judgment, the court held Starbucks had no duty to Chaney because the charger was open and obvious and not an inherently dangerous condition. The court noted the color contrast between the charger and tile floor, and observed that any patron would have readily noticed the charger. In deeming the charger not “inherently dangerous” the court took judicial notice of the ubiquity of chargers in public places, and noted that in a seating area a customer would reasonably expect to find any number of small personal items on the floor.

The court found no evidence of the charger’s danger beyond the fact that the charger rested on a floor where it could potentially be stepped on. In issuing its decision in favor of Starbucks, the court noted that to permit a jury to find that the charger was inherently dangerous under the “spare and unremarkable” circumstances would effectively permit a finding of inherent danger for virtually any readily visible item of personal property, food, or litter that a customer may have placed on the floor in the seating area of a café and on which a person could potentially trip. The court declined to permit such an expansive finding.

Thanks to Jorgelina Foglietta for her contribution to this post and please write to Mike Bono for more information.