Starbucks has been ordered to pay $50 million (1.68 billion baht) to a customer who suffered burns from a hot tea spill in a California drive-through.
Michael Garcia’s attorneys reported that the server who handed him three oversized drinks in February 2020 failed to secure one of them properly in the cardboard cupholder. Upon taking the tray, the drink tipped over, resulting in “third-degree burns to his penis, groin, and inner thighs,” as stated by Trial Lawyers for Justice.
Following a hospitalization and several skin grafts, Garcia has endured five years of disfigurement, pain, dysfunction, and psychological trauma due to the burns.
The firm, which specializes in no-win-no-fee cases, noted that Starbucks denied responsibility for Garcia’s injuries but had offered to settle for $30 million before the case headed to jury trial. However, the coffee chain rejected Garcia’s requests for a public apology and policy changes, leading to the trial.
On Friday, a Los Angeles jury awarded him $50 million. His attorneys indicated that the total amount Starbucks would ultimately pay could exceed $60 million once pre-judgment interest, costs, and attorney fees are factored in.
Garcia’s lawyers stated, “Starbucks Corporation consistently denied responsibility for five years, even during the trial, and tried to avoid accountability. The trial showcased frivolous defenses and victim-blaming. We commend Michael for standing up for himself and sharing his story.”
Starbucks expressed its intention to appeal the jury’s decision. Jaci Anderson, the company’s director of corporate communications, stated, “We sympathize with Mr. Garcia, but we disagree with the jury’s conclusion of our fault in this incident and believe the damages awarded are excessive. We remain committed to maintaining the highest safety standards in our stores, including the handling of hot drinks.”
This case echoes the 1994 landmark lawsuit against McDonald’s in New Mexico, where 79-year-old Stella Liebeck was awarded over $2.8 million after spilling hot coffee on herself. While her award was reduced on appeal, the Liebeck case became a significant point of reference in U.S. tort reform discussions and was frequently criticized as an example of Americans’ propensity to pursue legal action.
