Los Angeles, CA – A Los Angeles County jury awarded $50 million to a man after he suffered severe genital burns when a hot tea purchased from a Starbucks drive-through spilled in his lap. The tea, described as “scalding,” allegedly was not properly secured in a takeout tray by an employee of the coffee giant.
Michael Garcia, a delivery driver, experienced the painful accident on February 8, 2020, which led to him undergoing multiple skin grafts and other medical procedures. Reports indicate that the injuries Garcia sustained are both permanent and have drastically altered his life.
According to Garcia’s legal representation, the verdict serves not only as a financial compensation for Garcia but also as a moment of accountability for Starbucks, which his attorneys claim showed a “flagrant disregard for customer safety.” The attorneys hailed the decision as a victory in pursuit of corporate responsibility in consumer safety.
Starbucks expressed their disagreement with the jury’s ruling and described the $50 million damages as “excessive.” The company asserted their commitment to high safety standards, including the management and service of hot beverages.
This case inevitably echoes the infamous 1992 McDonald’s coffee incident where Stella Liebeck suffered third-degree burns after spilling hot coffee in her lap, leading her to be initially awarded nearly $3 million. Much like in the Liebeck case, the punitive damages were later significantly reduced by the court.
Similarly, a case in South Florida in July 2023 saw a family awarded $800,000 after their 4-year-old daughter sustained second-degree burns from a hot Chicken McNugget that fell into her lap from a McDonald’s Happy Meal in 2019.
Cases like these continue to spotlight the responsibilities of establishments serving hot beverages and food, reinforcing the ongoing dialogue about consumer safety and corporate accountability. It also opens up a broader conversation about the measures that need to be enforced to prevent such incidents that have life-altering consequences for individuals.
It must be noted that while efforts are made to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information, inaccuracies may exist, and the details of the story—including facts, circumstances, and the people involved—are subject to verification. Requests for corrections, retractions, or removals should be directed to contact@publiclawlibrary.org. This disclaimer emphasizes that the article was automatically generated by AI, and may contain factual inaccuracies.