Starbucks Ordered to Pay $50 Million in Customer Burn Case
A Los Angeles County jury has ruled that Starbucks is responsible for severe injuries sustained by a customer who was burned by hot drinks in a drive-through incident. The jury awarded Michael Garcia $50 million, a significant judgment that underscores questions regarding safety standards in serving hot beverages.
Details of the Incident
The case stems from an event that occurred on February 8, 2020, at a Starbucks location in Exposition Park, Los Angeles. Garcia, a delivery driver for Postmates, was picking up an order of three Venti hot teas when an incident unfolded. According to Garcia, during the handoff, the tray holding the drinks malfunctioned, leading to two cups spilling hot tea onto his lap, which resulted in serious burns, including injuries to his genital area.
Evidence of Negligence
Garcia characterized Starbucks’ actions as negligent, presenting security footage that seemed to show one of the drinks improperly secured in the tray as it was handed over by the barista. In his deposition, he noted that the lid was not correctly placed on one of the cups, contributing to the tragic spill.
The Jury’s Verdict
Following the trial, which included testimonies and evidence, jurors sided with Garcia and awarded him $50 million to cover both past and future damages, including pain and suffering. Starbucks has indicated intentions to appeal this verdict. Jaci Anderson, the company’s Director of Corporate Communications, stated, “We sympathize with Mr. Garcia, but we disagree with the jury’s decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages awarded to be excessive.”
Comparison to Previous Cases
This ruling is reminiscent of the infamous 1994 McDonald’s coffee spill case involving Stella Liebeck, who was awarded $3 million after suffering third-degree burns. That case has often served as a rallying point for discussions on tort reform and limitations on damage awards, and it remains a pertinent example in the context of beverage-related injuries.
Starbucks Response and Future Implications
In the wake of the jury’s decision, Starbucks maintains that the incident does not demonstrate any failure on their part. The company alleged that some responsibility for the accident lay with Garcia himself due to “contributory negligence.” Prior to the trial, Starbucks had offered Garcia $3 million, and later a more substantial offer of $30 million, contingent upon their agreement to adjust safety protocols. Garcia’s attorneys stated that the proposed agreement included a request for Starbucks to enhance their safety measures, which the company ultimately declined, leading to the court proceedings.
Similar Ongoing Cases
The legal challenges related to beverage spills at Starbucks are ongoing. In fact, another lawsuit has been filed by Muriel Evans, who claims to have experienced serious nerve damage and disfigurement from a similar incident involving a cup of coffee. Her case is scheduled for trial in February 2026, further emphasizing ongoing concerns about safety protocols in the handling of hot beverages at the popular coffee chain.
Conclusion
This substantial jury award against Starbucks sheds light on the critical need for strict adherence to safety standards in food service. As the coffee giant prepares to appeal the verdict, the legal outcomes may prompt wider discussions on corporate responsibility and customer safety protocols in the industry.
