Photo Credit: Shutterstock
A California jury has awarded $50 million in damages to a plaintiff who suffered severe burns from a spilled hot tea, marking one of the largest payouts in a product liability case involving Starbucks.
The case stems from a February 8, 2020, incident at a Starbucks drive-thru in Los Angeles. The plaintiff, Michael Garcia, alleged that he was handed a takeout tray containing multiple hot drinks, including a venti-sized tea, which was not properly secured. As he took possession of the tray, the tea spilled, causing extensive burns to his body, including his genitals. Court filings indicate that Garcia required multiple skin grafts and extensive medical treatment, with claims of permanent disfigurement.
Garcia’s lawsuit accused Starbucks of negligence and breach of duty of care, arguing that the company failed to ensure the drink was properly secured before handing it to the customer. In response, Starbucks contended that Garcia bore responsibility for safely handling the tray, maintaining that customers assume a degree of risk when receiving hot beverages. The company also argued that it follows strict safety protocols when serving drinks.
Despite these claims, the jury ruled in favor of Garcia, awarding damages far beyond Starbucks’ initial settlement offers of $3 million and later $30 million. Legal analysts suggest that several factors contributed to the substantial verdict. The severity of Garcia’s injuries, which resulted in permanent physical damage and required extensive medical care, likely played a critical role. The company’s refusal to settle before trial may have also influenced the jury’s decision. Additionally, the argument that Starbucks failed to properly secure the beverage appears to have been a key issue in the case. Public sentiment and legal precedent, particularly comparisons to the well-known McDonald’s hot coffee case, may have further shaped the outcome.
Starbucks has announced plans to appeal, calling the damages excessive. While the appeals process could take months or even years, the case has already renewed discussions on corporate responsibility and consumer safety. Legal experts believe the ruling could lead to new industry-wide policies regarding beverage handling and customer service protocols.
