Jury: Starbucks must pay $50M for coffee spilled in customer's lap

The Starbucks Corporation must pay $50 million to a delivery driver who suffered disfiguring burns to his genitals when he spilled an unsecured drink in his lap, a Los Angeles jury decided on Friday morning.

The company said it will appeal because it was not at fault and the damages were excessive.

Nicholas C. Rowley of Trial Lawyers for Justice in San Francisco, who represented the plaintiff, confirmed the verdict while commending the jury.

"Starbucks frivolously denied liability and lost big. Justice was served," Rowley responded in an email Friday. "Three jurors dissented and were crying because they wanted the verdict to be $125 million. God bless them and every other person that served on the jury."

Plaintiff Michael Garcia was also represented by Trial Lawyers for Justice attorneys John A. Kawai and Grayson P. Yoder in Ventura.

Price Pelletier LLP attorneys Stephen T. Pelletier and Samuel S. Baxter in San Francisco represented Starbucks. Pelletier referred an emailed request for comment to the Starbucks press department.

Starbucks Director of Corporate Communications Jaci Anderson said the company would appeal the verdict in an email on Friday.

"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. We plan to appeal. We have always been committed to the highest safety standards in our stores, including the handling of hot drinks," Anderson said.

Garcia sued in 2020 after a hot drink he was picking up from a Starbucks drive-thru fell out of a cardboard carrier and into his lap. The spill caused "severe burns, disfigurement, and debilitating nerve damage to his genitals," according to an amended complaint filed in April 2024.

The principal cause of the spill, Garcia argued, was a failure by the Starbucks employee to properly secure the drink in the carrier. Garcia v. Starbucks Corporation, 20STCV10214 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed March 13, 2020).

"Said failure to properly secure a hot drink in its carrier created a foreseeable danger that an unbalanced and unsecured cup of hot liquid would spill upon handing it to the customer such as Plaintiff. No reasonable expectation of an unsecure cup can be attributed to plaintiff's conduct," the amended complaint read.

In an answer filed in December, Starbucks placed responsibility for the spill on Garcia.

The Plaintiff "failed to exercise ordinary care on his own behalf, which negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion, up to and including the whole thereof, of the injuries and damages complained of in this action," the answer read. "Plaintiff's recovery against this answering defendant, therefore, should be barred or reduced according to principles of comparative negligence."

According to Rowley, the coffee shop chain made a $3 million pre-trial offer and, later, a $30 million offer to settle the case. Garcia previously agreed to the $30 million settlement under the condition that the company apologize and revise its safety policies, but Starbucks declined those terms, Rowley said.

On March 6, a jury found Starbucks fully liable for the incident following phase one of the trial, according to court documents.

With Friday's verdict, Starbucks will likely pay approximately $61 million including pre-judgment interests and costs, according to Rowley, unless it is overturned or reduced on remand.

"No amount of money will ever make up for the permanent and unimaginable harm that Michael suffered. In addition, we will be moving for and expect to be awarded costs of proof sanctions and attorney's fees because Starbucks denied request for admissions that we proved at trial," Rowley said.

"We hope that the public perception and view of hot coffee cases ... changes and that the world takes a good hard look at what happened to Michael and the callous disregard for the safety of customers that we proved," he continued. "Opposing counsel in this case was very skilled and professional but was dealt a bad hand by Starbucks."