California delivery driver Michael Garcia gets $50 million from Starbucks for a tea spill that left him permanently disfigured, while the coffee giant claims the verdict is “excessive” and plans to appeal.
At a Glance
- Los Angeles jury awarded $50 million to delivery driver Michael Garcia for severe burns from a Starbucks hot tea spill
- Garcia suffered permanent disfigurement requiring multiple skin grafts after the February 2020 incident
- The lawsuit claimed Starbucks employees failed to properly secure the hot tea in a takeout tray
- Starbucks plans to appeal, calling the damages “excessive” and maintaining they weren’t at fault
- The case echoes the famous 1990s McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit that sparked debate about personal injury cases
Another Coffee Giant Hit With Massive Verdict
Remember when spilling coffee on yourself was your own darned fault? Those days are apparently over. A California jury just hit Starbucks with a whopping $50 million verdict after delivery driver Michael Garcia was burned by hot tea at a drive-through in February 2020. The Los Angeles County jury determined Starbucks employees were negligent for not properly securing the venti-sized hot tea in a takeout tray. Garcia suffered severe burns to his lap area that required skin grafts and other medical procedures, resulting in what his attorneys described as “permanent and life-changing disfigurement.”
This case reads like a sequel to that infamous McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit from the ’90s that became the poster child for frivolous lawsuits in America. But there’s a key difference here – the jury wasn’t just compensating for burns, they were sending a message to a corporate giant. Garcia’s attorney, Nick Rowley, didn’t mince words about what this verdict really means, and it wasn’t just about his client’s injuries. It was about holding a multi-billion dollar corporation accountable for what they deemed a “flagrant disregard” for customer safety.
Starbucks Fights Back
Predictably, Starbucks isn’t taking this lying down. The coffee behemoth immediately announced plans to appeal the decision, clearly viewing the $50 million figure as absurd. And frankly, many Americans might agree. While no one disputes Garcia suffered legitimate injuries, the question remains: at what point did we decide that corporations should be on the hook for life-changing sums when accidents happen? Starbucks serves millions of hot beverages daily without incident. Are we really supposed to believe they have a “flagrant disregard” for safety, or is this just another example of our lawsuit-happy culture?
“We disagree with the jury’s decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages awarded to be excessive.” – Starbucks
The company continues to maintain they’re “committed to the highest safety standards” in their stores, including how they handle hot drinks. What exactly would critics have them do differently? Serve lukewarm tea that no customer would want to drink? Require customers to sign liability waivers before handing over their morning caffeine fix? Perhaps they should just install airbags around every cup, just to be safe. These verdicts don’t seem to leave much middle ground between negligence and absurdity.
Not The First Time
This Starbucks case is just the latest in a long line of hot beverage lawsuits plaguing America’s restaurant chains. Last year, a jury awarded $800,000 to a family after a child was burned by a hot McDonald’s Chicken McNugget. Yes, you read that correctly – nearly a million dollars for a hot nugget. The most famous case remains the 1992 incident where Stella Liebeck sued McDonald’s after spilling coffee on herself, eventually receiving $640,000. That case became a lightning rod in the debate over tort reform and personal responsibility in America.
“This jury verdict is a critical step in holding Starbucks accountable for flagrant disregard for customer safety and failure to accept responsibility.” – Nick Rowley
What’s increasingly clear is that these verdicts aren’t just about compensating victims – they’re political statements dressed up as justice. When attorneys frame these cases as battles against corporate greed and negligence rather than unfortunate accidents, they tap into a populist rage against big business that resonates with many jurors. Meanwhile, the rest of us pay for these massive settlements through higher prices on our daily cup of joe. In the end, the only guaranteed winners are the attorneys who typically take home a third of these eye-popping judgments.
