A Los Angeles County jury delivered a stunning verdict and ordered Starbucks to pay $50 million to a driver who suffered catastrophic, life-altering burns when a cup of hot tea spilled in his lap. This burn case, like the McDonalds burn case made national headlines.

In 2020, Michael Garcia was working as a delivery driver when he visited a Starbucks drive-thru in South Los Angeles to pick up an order of three “Medicine Ball” drinks. Starbucks employees placed the drinks in a cardboard drink carrier and one of the cups was left improperly secured, as confirmed by surveillance footage later shown to the jury. Seconds after Garcia placed the drinks in his car, the unsecured cup tipped over, spilling scalding hot tea directly onto his lap — soaking through his clothing and causing catastrophic injuries.

Garcia’s injuries were severe and permanent. Garcia suffered third-degree burns to his groin and genitals, requiring emergency care and hospitalization. Treatment at the Grossman Burn Center included two skin graft surgeries on his genitals. Mr. Garcia was left with a permanently disfigured and discolored penis, with loss of length and girth. Permanent erectile dysfunction and severe nerve damage preventing Garcia from having normal sexual function including severe pain during sexual activity. “One of the most pleasurable experiences in life has been changed to pain. It’s an awful, awful injury. He’s a different person. This will affect every facet of his life.”

Despite overwhelming evidence, Starbucks’ pursued an aggressive defense strategy aimed at deflecting responsibility and blamed Garcia for his own injuries. Starbucks went so far as to place the blame on Garcia for mishandling the tray saying the victim mishandled the drink carrier after receiving it and implied that his carelessness caused the spill. Starbucks later suggested Garcia placed the tray in a precarious position in the car which led to the accident. Starbucks even attempted to blame Garcia’s dog, suggesting the dog’s presence in the car may have contributed to the accident while lacking any evidence to support this assertion.

Surveillance video clearly showed Starbucks employees failing to properly secure the drink. Garcia handled the carrier in the same manner any reasonable customer would. The jury rejected Starbucks’ attempt to shift blame and found that zero comparative fault should be assigned to Garcia and held Starbucks 100% responsible.

The jury’s decision was firm and delivered with remarkable speed. The speed of the jury’s decision should have sent a message about how clearly they viewed Starbucks’ liability. After a week-long liability trial the jury took just 40 minutes to decide Starbucks was fully at fault. During the damages phase, the jury deliberated for just over two hours before awarding $50 million in damages. This extremely fast decision suggests that the jury saw Starbucks’ negligence as obvious and they had little difficulty rejecting attempts to blame Garcia. In California juries have the ability to apportion fault between parties and the jury placed 100% of the blame on Starbucks. The jury accepted Starbucks’ duty to safely serve hot beverages, and recognized that Garcia, as a delivery driver simply picking up drinks, bore no responsibility for the incident.

The surveillance video made this decision even more clear. The video showed Starbucks employees failing to secure the drink properly, and Garcia handling the carrier as any customer would. The speed of the jury’s verdict should send a loud and clear message: when a corporation fails to follow basic safety protocols and causes life-altering injuries, the responsibility lies entirely with the company and not the victim.

Starbucks continues to refuse to accept full responsibility and has called the $50 million verdict “excessive” and say they plan to appeal. A statement from Starbucks reads: “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.”

Despite publicly denying responsibility throughout the trial and in post-trial statements, Starbucks privately made substantial settlement offers, ranging from seven to eight figures — all of which were rejected by Garcia, who was seeking full accountability for his life-altering injuries:

• $3 million offered before trial — rejected.
• $30 million offered after liability was established — rejected.

Ultimately, the jury awarded significantly more than Starbucks offered to settle, a result that reflects the seriousness and permanent impact of Garcia’s injuries — something Starbucks continues to minimize in its public stance.

We represent people who are injured because of the careless and reckless acts of others.  At the end of the day your case can only be settled one time and you need to know all of the facts beforehand. The reason that insurance companies have paid our clients in excess of $130,000,000.00 is that we get the facts and are not intimidated at the prospect of going to trial when insurance companies fail to offer full compensation. We help with serious injuries that require serious representation. We are the Law Offices of Guenard & Bozarth, LLP. Our attorneys have more than 60 years of experience specializing in only representing injured people. Call GB Legal 24/7/365 at 888-809-1075 or visit www.gblegal.com