California delivery driver awarded $50 million after Starbucks hot tea causes permanent disfigurement
Soror Shaiza | Mar 16, 2025, 21:27 IST
Michael Garcia, a delivery driver, was awarded $50 million after a scalding hot tea from Starbucks caused permanent disfigurement. The case echoes the infamous McDonald's coffee lawsuit, raising questions about corporate responsibility and customer safety. Starbucks plans to appeal the verdict, arguing the damages awarded were excessive.
A Devastating Accident and the Legal Battle
Michael Garcia, a Postmates delivery driver from California, was awarded $50 million after a jury ruled that Starbucks was negligent in handling a dangerously hot tea. On February 8, 2020, Garcia was picking up a delivery order at a Starbucks drive-thru in Los Angeles when one of the cups, improperly secured in a cardboard carrier, tipped over and spilled directly into his lap. The hot tea caused severe third-degree burns to his penis, groin, and inner thighs, resulting in permanent disfigurement.
Garcia’s legal team, led by attorney Nick Rowley, argued that the incident was due to Starbucks’ failure to ensure the safety of its customers, citing the negligence of the employee who failed to properly secure the drink. Rowley called the award “a critical step in holding Starbucks accountable for its disregard for customer safety,” emphasizing the life-altering impact on Garcia. In a statement, Rowley explained that while no amount of money could undo the damage, the verdict was essential in setting a precedent for corporate accountability.
Garcia’s Physical and Emotional Struggles
Following the accident, Garcia required two skin grafts at Grossman Burn Center to treat the severe burns on his body. The trauma to his genital area has resulted in constant pain, especially when friction occurs, significantly impacting his daily life. His attorney described the injuries as “catastrophic” and noted that the experience has left Garcia emotionally and physically scarred. The lawsuit claims that Garcia’s life has been forever altered by the incident, as he will suffer from the painful consequences of the burns for the rest of his life.
Despite the severe injuries, Garcia continues to fight for justice in an attempt to hold Starbucks accountable. His wife, in statements to the press, echoed the sentiment that no financial sum could fully compensate for the harm done, but the verdict offers some measure of justice. Garcia’s ongoing struggle reflects the lasting impact of the accident, highlighting the importance of holding companies accountable for their actions.
Starbucks Responds and Plans to Appeal
In response to the jury’s decision, Starbucks expressed sympathy for Garcia’s suffering but disagreed with the ruling, especially the $50 million award. The company stated its commitment to maintaining high safety standards in its stores and announced plans to appeal the verdict. Starbucks maintained that the incident was not the result of negligence on their part, disputing the claim that the employee at the drive-thru was at fault.
The coffee giant’s stance echoes the company’s long-standing policy of addressing customer complaints and injuries, but in this case, they strongly disagree with the jury’s assessment of fault and the substantial financial damages awarded. The appeal will likely extend the legal battle further, but Starbucks has indicated that it will continue to push back against what it views as an excessive penalty for the incident.
A Familiar Legal Comparison: The McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit
The case has drawn comparisons to the infamous 1992 McDonald’s coffee lawsuit, in which Stella Liebeck, 79, suffered third-degree burns when a cup of McDonald’s coffee spilled in her lap at a drive-thru. Like the Starbucks case, Liebeck's injuries were severe, and her lawsuit also became a focal point for discussions about frivolous lawsuits and corporate negligence. Critics of the McDonald’s case argued that Liebeck’s lawsuit was excessive, but evidence showed that McDonald’s coffee was significantly hotter than the industry standard. At least 700 people had been burned by the coffee before the incident, and the company had done little to address the problem.
Garcia’s case reflects similar concerns about corporate responsibility, with his legal team arguing that Starbucks failed to prioritize customer safety, resulting in devastating consequences. Both lawsuits raise questions about the safety standards of large corporations and the extent to which they should be held accountable for customer injuries caused by their products.
As the legal process continues, the case could set a significant precedent for similar future lawsuits involving corporate negligence and customer safety, underscoring the importance of companies taking proactive measures to ensure the well-being of their consumers.
Michael Garcia, a Postmates delivery driver from California, was awarded $50 million after a jury ruled that Starbucks was negligent in handling a dangerously hot tea. On February 8, 2020, Garcia was picking up a delivery order at a Starbucks drive-thru in Los Angeles when one of the cups, improperly secured in a cardboard carrier, tipped over and spilled directly into his lap. The hot tea caused severe third-degree burns to his penis, groin, and inner thighs, resulting in permanent disfigurement.
Garcia’s legal team, led by attorney Nick Rowley, argued that the incident was due to Starbucks’ failure to ensure the safety of its customers, citing the negligence of the employee who failed to properly secure the drink. Rowley called the award “a critical step in holding Starbucks accountable for its disregard for customer safety,” emphasizing the life-altering impact on Garcia. In a statement, Rowley explained that while no amount of money could undo the damage, the verdict was essential in setting a precedent for corporate accountability.
Garcia’s Physical and Emotional Struggles
Following the accident, Garcia required two skin grafts at Grossman Burn Center to treat the severe burns on his body. The trauma to his genital area has resulted in constant pain, especially when friction occurs, significantly impacting his daily life. His attorney described the injuries as “catastrophic” and noted that the experience has left Garcia emotionally and physically scarred. The lawsuit claims that Garcia’s life has been forever altered by the incident, as he will suffer from the painful consequences of the burns for the rest of his life.
Despite the severe injuries, Garcia continues to fight for justice in an attempt to hold Starbucks accountable. His wife, in statements to the press, echoed the sentiment that no financial sum could fully compensate for the harm done, but the verdict offers some measure of justice. Garcia’s ongoing struggle reflects the lasting impact of the accident, highlighting the importance of holding companies accountable for their actions.
Starbucks Responds and Plans to Appeal
In response to the jury’s decision, Starbucks expressed sympathy for Garcia’s suffering but disagreed with the ruling, especially the $50 million award. The company stated its commitment to maintaining high safety standards in its stores and announced plans to appeal the verdict. Starbucks maintained that the incident was not the result of negligence on their part, disputing the claim that the employee at the drive-thru was at fault.
The coffee giant’s stance echoes the company’s long-standing policy of addressing customer complaints and injuries, but in this case, they strongly disagree with the jury’s assessment of fault and the substantial financial damages awarded. The appeal will likely extend the legal battle further, but Starbucks has indicated that it will continue to push back against what it views as an excessive penalty for the incident.
A Familiar Legal Comparison: The McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit
The case has drawn comparisons to the infamous 1992 McDonald’s coffee lawsuit, in which Stella Liebeck, 79, suffered third-degree burns when a cup of McDonald’s coffee spilled in her lap at a drive-thru. Like the Starbucks case, Liebeck's injuries were severe, and her lawsuit also became a focal point for discussions about frivolous lawsuits and corporate negligence. Critics of the McDonald’s case argued that Liebeck’s lawsuit was excessive, but evidence showed that McDonald’s coffee was significantly hotter than the industry standard. At least 700 people had been burned by the coffee before the incident, and the company had done little to address the problem.
Garcia’s case reflects similar concerns about corporate responsibility, with his legal team arguing that Starbucks failed to prioritize customer safety, resulting in devastating consequences. Both lawsuits raise questions about the safety standards of large corporations and the extent to which they should be held accountable for customer injuries caused by their products.
As the legal process continues, the case could set a significant precedent for similar future lawsuits involving corporate negligence and customer safety, underscoring the importance of companies taking proactive measures to ensure the well-being of their consumers.