A Tim Hortons customer has launched an $850,000 lawsuit against the Blind River location, alleging she suffered serious burns from a coffee that spilled on her lap in the drive-thru lane.
Susan Niganobe, 71, claims to suffer from anxiety, panic attacks and emotional trauma as a result of the incident, as well as depression, sleep disruption and emotional distress.
She filed her lawsuit in Sault Ste. Marie and is requesting that the case be tried here.
A statement of defence has yet to be filed and none of the allegations have been tested in court.
According to the lawsuit, obtained from the courthouse by SooToday, the incident occurred June 24, 2021 at the Blind River Tim Hortons franchise on Causley Street. Niganobe, from nearby Mississauga First Nation, drove to the restaurant to order a medium regular coffee and a sandwich.
After pulling up to the drive-thru window, she says an employee used a tray to pass her the items. It is alleged that the lid on the hot drink was not secured properly, causing it to spill on her inner thighs.
“As a direct result of this negligence, [Niganobe] suffered a serious burn,” reads the statement of claim. “The defendants failed in their duty of care to safeguard Susan from harm and is exclusively liable for the damages she has suffered.”
The 71-year-old claims she was badly scalded, causing ongoing pain, discomfort and scarring. Her statement of claim notes she has continued with regular care from her family physician and personal support worker, as well as treatments at the hospital emergency department.
The statement of claim names two defendants: a numbered company that acts as the local Tim Hortons franchisee, and Amir Ladha Properties Inc. The lawsuit claims both “failed to provide proper training” to employees to handle the containers hot coffee is served in.
Niganobe is seeking $850,000 in damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of housekeeping capacity and future care costs, as well as loss of income.
SooToday contacted Tim Hortons’ head office for comment but the company declined to comment because the matter is before the courts.