Summary
A California jury awarded Michael Garcia $50 million after he suffered severe burns from a spilled Starbucks hot tea, requiring skin grafts and causing permanent disfigurement.
Garcia’s lawsuit alleged a Starbucks employee failed to secure the drink in a tray, leading to the spill. Starbucks offered a $30 million settlement with confidentiality, which Garcia rejected.
The company plans to appeal, calling the damages excessive.
The case echoes past lawsuits over hot beverage burns, including the famous McDonald’s coffee case from the 1990s.
The issue with this is not likely to be the fault of whoever dropped the cup, but rather like the prior McDonald’s case that the restaurant was maintaining the drink at far too high a temperature to be safe. Therefore guaranteeing injury if it is spilled on someone – regardless of how it is spilled.
Expecting that drinks will never get spilled on anyone is completely unrealistic. Maintaining drink temperature at a reasonably non-injurious level for when (not if) one will be spilled is therefore mandatory.
This dude required skin grafts. That’s not a case of, “Oops, it spilled and now your shirt’s wet.”
It’s both in terms of fault. California is a comparative fault state. So if the guy’s injuries are worth 50 mil and he and Starbucks are each found equally at fault, them for giving overheated water and him for negligently handling a cup of potentially dangerously hot liquid then they’re each responsible for half the 50 mil. Or 70:30. Or 100:0. Whatever the jury decides.