Jury Sides with Burn Victim, Orders Starbucks to Pay for “Horrific Injuries”
A Los Angeles jury has awarded $50 million in damages to a delivery driver who suffered severe burns after two cups of hot tea spilled onto his lap at a Starbucks in West Adams. The verdict, reached on March 14, stems from a February 2020 incident in which the driver, Michael Garcia, sustained life-altering injuries due to what he claimed was negligence by a Starbucks employee.
According to Los Angeles County Superior Court records reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, Garcia received two cups of hot tea from a Starbucks employee at the location on the corner of Western Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard. He testified that the barista failed to properly secure the lids on the drinks, causing them to spill from the beverage carrier and onto his lap.
Garcia’s legal team argued that the burns resulted in “horrific injuries” that required multiple surgeries and left him with “permanent disfigurement” to his groin area. The Times also reported that Garcia underwent multiple rounds of skin grafts, surgeries, and additional medical treatments. His attorneys claimed that he continues to suffer from significant pain, sexual dysfunction, and permanent scarring.
Before the case went to trial, Starbucks initially offered Garcia a $3 million settlement, which was later increased to $30 million, according to CBS News. Garcia was reportedly willing to accept the offer on the condition that Starbucks issue a formal apology and revise its policies to ensure that all hot beverages are securely sealed before being handed to customers. However, Starbucks refused to agree to those terms, leading to a jury trial.
After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, the jury sided with Garcia, awarding him $50 million in damages—substantially more than the company’s highest settlement offer.
In response to the verdict, Starbucks announced its intention to appeal. In a statement provided to The New York Times, the coffee chain said, “We disagree with the jury’s decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages awarded to be excessive.”
