If what happened is true as argued by plaintiff's lawyer, I see no problem with the verdict. The fact that they "made a $3 million pre-trial offer and later $30 million to settle the case" tells you they knew they were going to lose, imo.

https://www.foxnews.com/food-d...mer-burned-hot-drink

By Michael Dorgan | Fox News
Published March 15, 2025 8:18pm EDT

Coffee giant Starbucks has been ordered to pay a California drive-through customer $50 million after an unsecured hot drink spilled on him, causing burns.

Michael Garcia underwent skin grafts and other procedures on his genitals after he was handed a takeout tray of venti-sized drinks at a drive-through on Feb. 8, 2020.

His lawyers successfully argued that a barista failed to wedge one of those drinks into the tray and when Garcia took it into his possession, the scorching hot drink spilled out, causing severe burns.

He suffered permanent and life-changing disfigurement, according to his attorney.

The lawsuit accused Starbucks of breaching its duty of care. A Los Angeles County jury agreed and awarded the massive payout.

"This jury verdict is a critical step in holding Starbucks accountable for flagrant disregard for customer safety and failure to accept responsibility," one of Garcia’s attorneys, Nick Rowley, said in a statement to The Associated Press.

Three of the jurors dissented and wanted the payout to be $125 million, Garcia’s attorney, Nicholas Rowley said, according to the Daily Journal.

The Seattle-based company said it plans to appeal.

"We disagree with the jury’s decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages awarded to be excessive," Starbucks said in a statement to media outlets, per The AP.

The company added it is "committed to the highest safety standards" in handling hot drinks.

Starbucks had argued that Garcia had failed to exercise ordinary care on his own behalf and that his own negligence and carelessness contributed to the spill, which took place at the company's 1789 West Jefferson Blvd. location.

The company made a $3 million pre-trial offer and later $30 million to settle the case, Rowley told the Daily Journal.

Garcia initially agreed on the condition the company apologize and revised its safety standards but refused, Rowley said, per the outlet.

McDonald’s has to pay 2.7 million to an elderly late…

Starbucks: “hold my beer”

In all seriousness, I find these customers kinda dumb and the businesses for taking it this far. Though if they bowed to every dumb customer they would be out even more. Vicious cycle I’m glad I’m not a part of.

Once again, for the peanut gallery.

(No idea about Starbucks)

McDonald’s had a policy of keeping the coffee at an extreme temperature, because it tasted fresher, longer. So, it reduced how often they had to make coffee.

That it would have been lethal to drink at that temperature, was a decision they made.

The woman had 3rd degree burns, and required reconstructive surgery.

They knew it posed a risk, and felt it was offset by the savings.

The damages awarded by the court were, in part, due to their decision to serve a dangerous substance, to increase profits, but mostly related to the amount of pain damages and reconstructive surgery to that part of the body.

McDonald’s violated normal standards, and had hundreds of prior complaints about burns from the coffee.

Unreasonably, IMO, the damages were significantly reduced.

I have a different take on this. Those of us born before say, 1975-80, grew up knowing that the world was not safe. We learned early to be very careful with hot, sharp, or pokey things.

We took responsibility for ourselves and would assure things were secure or made them that way. To this day I still make sure lids on beverages are secure and cups are seated in a carry out tray or assure they are before I move it. When handed, I move slowly to assure I don't aggravate a situation the other person did.

It seems like today, people assume everything is 100% safe or should be 100% safe. I've seen countless examples of people doing foolish things because they 'assumed' everything was secure or everything was safe.

In other countries, Japan for example, your safety is your responsibility. Even in the work place if you get hurt it is assumed YOU did not follow procedure or acted in an unsafe manner causing the accident. That is more often the case than not everywhere.

I agree, hot coffee of any temperate should be handled with care, the fact that is was overly hot shouldn’t matter.

I get boiling soup from restaurants sometimes, if I spill it on myself i can’t claim it was excessively hot.

Dick skin grafts are worth 50 mil.

I'm 78 and would pay to have a little excitement down there!

.

There were many more facts with the McDonalds case than most people realize. I hate Starbucks but 50 mill seems a bit outlandish. Burns that require skin grafts is bad but 50 mill?

The issue is (if I'm reading it right) the worker failed to properly secure one of the coffees in that cardboard tray thingy. It's not like as the customer sitting in your car, you can properly inspect the tray to make sure each cup is secure prior to taking possession of it.

As for the amount, I cannot really assess it. "Dick skin grafts" does sound horrific.

I'm never going to accept a trayful of burning-hot liquids passed through the window of my car.

I also believe that drivethroughs are a huge waste of gasoline.

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:
Burns that require skin grafts is bad but 50 mill?

If I had to have my dick re-skinned because a barista couldn't properly operate a cup tray, I'd want every last cent I could get from those clowns. Fifty million, a hundred, whatever. What's your price for a burned-up dick?

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
I have a different take on this. Those of us born before say, 1975-80, grew up knowing that the world was not safe. We learned early to be very careful with hot, sharp, or pokey things.

We took responsibility for ourselves and would assure things were secure or made them that way. To this day I still make sure lids on beverages are secure and cups are seated in a carry out tray or assure they are before I move it. When handed, I move slowly to assure I don't aggravate a situation the other person did.

It seems like today, people assume everything is 100% safe or should be 100% safe. I've seen countless examples of people doing foolish things because they 'assumed' everything was secure or everything was safe.

In other countries, Japan for example, your safety is your responsibility. Even in the work place if you get hurt it is assumed YOU did not follow procedure or acted in an unsafe manner causing the accident. That is more often the case than not everywhere.

Highlighted above: except in both cases (McDonald's and Starbucks, the coffee in question was spilled by the store's representative into the customer's lap, who was sitting in their car. It was not the customer who failed to ensure the lid(s) was/were properly attached, it was the store.

This is not like being seated at a table in a restaurant where the waiter/server spills a cup of hot coffee into your lap where you can stand up fast and get that hot cloth off your skin - the patrons were in their car and essentially trapped and prevented from standing up because the store's exterior wall prevents the driver's door from opening.

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:
There were many more facts with the McDonalds case than most people realize. I hate Starbucks but 50 mill seems a bit outlandish. Burns that require skin grafts is bad but 50 mill?

Except the McDonald's decision set the precedence and informed the coffee sellers they need to ensure the hot liquids passed to the "trapped" customer (see my last post) need to be properly secured before handing off the contents to the customer.

Because that "notice" and jury ruling was already out there (anbd HIGHLY reported to include late-night comedy shows), the future instance of a highly reported case is now 100% the store's burden to ensure they are doing everything reasonable to follow and prevent.

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:
I get boiling soup from restaurants sometimes, if I spill it on myself i can’t claim it was excessively hot.

To make it apples to apples, so if the restaurant, a huge chain, made a corporate premeditated decision to serve soup at temperature that was lethal to consume and the server dumped said soup into your lap, or served it to you in a way that caused (not that you fucked up, the method they served it to you was the reason) you dumped it into your lap resulting in third degree burns to your legs and genitals, you'd be like "my bad!"?

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:
Burns that require skin grafts is bad but 50 mill?

If I had to have my dick re-skinned because a barista couldn't properly operate a cup tray, I'd want every last cent I could get from those clowns. Fifty million, a hundred, whatever. What's your price for a burned-up dick?

Yup. Do folks realize that this is a permanent major life-changing event, and not for the better? His fucking reproductive organ was all messed up. It's not like, oh, part of his arm was burned that required skin graft, although that in itself is very bad enough already.

All that treatments he had to endure, plus the mental anguish he'll likely have to carry the rest of his life. And, we don't even know if he can even perform to capacity any longer, if at all. How do you measure all that in terms of monetary value? That the company offering 30 mil to settle means they knew he was going to get more going to trial.

If what I read is accurate, then there's a lot more culpability on Starbucks than there was in the McDonald's case. The drink was not secured in the tray. The drink fell onto the customer when the barista handed it the customer in his car. That's square on the Starbuck's barista.

In the McDonald's case, the customer received her coffee safely. She held the drink between her knees, b/c her 1989 Ford Probe didn't have a drink holder, which were still uncommon in cars around that time (occurred in 1992). She opened the lid and spilled the scalding coffee on her lap. The crux of her lawsuit was about the acceptable temperature for fast food coffee. I don't believe employee mishandling had anything to do with it. Maybe her lawyers argued that even a single cup should have been served in a tray, which I'm uncertain would have made a meaningful difference.

One of the reasons McDonald's coffee was so hot was because the hotter temperature extracted more coffee from the coffee grinds. The target temperature was also intended for it to be at desired drinking temperature after sitting for 10-15 min.

Customers who drank their coffee right away often complained about it being too hot for consumption. After McDonald's lowered the temperature the customers who waited until getting to work or where ever to drink it complained that their coffee was no longer as warm as they liked.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:
Burns that require skin grafts is bad but 50 mill?

If I had to have my dick re-skinned because a barista couldn't properly operate a cup tray, I'd want every last cent I could get from those clowns. Fifty million, a hundred, whatever. What's your price for a burned-up dick?

Yup. Do folks realize that this is a permanent major life-changing event, and not for the better? His fucking reproductive organ was all messed up. It's not like, oh, part of his arm was burned that required skin graft, although that in itself is very bad enough already.

All that treatments he had to endure, plus the mental anguish he'll likely have to carry the rest of his life. And, we don't even know if he can even perform to capacity any longer, if at all. How do you measure all that in terms of monetary value? That the company offering 30 mil to settle means they knew he was going to get more going to trial.

That’s the result of not reading everything. I was skimming through that while at work while I was thinking about the McDonald’s case. Totally missed where it was his genitals. That does make a difference. If I recall, the grandmother also was burned in a similar fashion.

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:
I get boiling soup from restaurants sometimes, if I spill it on myself i can’t claim it was excessively hot.

To make it apples to apples, so if the restaurant, a huge chain, made a corporate premeditated decision to serve soup at temperature that was lethal to consume and the server dumped said soup into your lap, or served it to you in a way that caused (not that you fucked up, the method they served it to you was the reason) you dumped it into your lap resulting in third degree burns to your legs and genitals, you'd be like "my bad!"?

Going back to my original comment, i did say that it’s the fault of these companies too. Were I in that case I would expect them to pay the medical bills and compensate me for my troubles. Would I want to sue for 50 million dollars. No, nor would I. Starbucks, and McDonalds had opportunities to make this right for far less. That was the reason I placed the broad stroke on both the person and the companies.

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:
I get boiling soup from restaurants sometimes, if I spill it on myself i can’t claim it was excessively hot.

?

Going back to my original comment, i did say that it’s the fault of these companies too. Were I in that case I would expect them to pay the medical bills and compensate me for my troubles. Would I want to sue for 50 million dollars. No, nor would I. Starbucks, and McDonalds had opportunities to make this right for far less. That was the reason I placed the broad stroke on both the person and the companies.

I want to make sure that you understand with this reply I am not trying to be confrontational, I'm truly curious. A many multi billion dollar company premeditates to cause you (and by "you" here I mean they knew someone was going to have this happen to them and it happened to be you, not that they kidnapped and tortured you specifically) extreme and long lasting pain and suffering. They could have acted differently and decided not to. You know this before you make the decision to accept compensation. You are then injured in such a way. What's your number to make this okay for the actions of the company, the pain caused you at the incident and the recovery process, and dealing with this injury for the rest of your (and those around you whom were also affected, or will never be in your life BECAUSE you were affected) life?

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
A many multi billion dollar company premeditates to cause you (and by "you" here I mean they knew someone was going to have this happen to them and it happened to be you, not that they kidnapped and tortured you specifically) extreme and long lasting pain and suffering.

Premeditates?
Did the barista plan to spill the coffee on the plaintiff on purpose? Did Starbucks knowingly ignore a faulty design, the way Ford did in the Pinto case? Are Starbucks' cups, lids, & drink trays substandard compared to what their competitors use?

quote:

What's your number to make this okay for the actions of the company, the pain caused you at the incident and the recovery process, and dealing with this injury for the rest of your... life?

When I see lawsuits and awards in cases like these, I wonder, should the dollar amount to damages awarded be considered independent of the defendant's financial status, or should juries factor in how deep the defendant's pockets are?

What if this spilt coffee accident happened at an independently owned coffee shop? Do you think the plaintiffs would seek $5 million - much less $50 million - knowing that $300K alone would shut down the coffee shop and bankrupt its owners? I know a lot of people will rationalize that for a multi-billion dollar company, the award should be large enough to send a message, otherwise they won't be motivated to fix a problem.

Say some guy sets your car on fire. It's fair market replacement value is $25K. The vandal has has a net worth of $100K. You sue the guy, and the jury awards $25K. If the vandal has a net worth of $1 billion, does the replacement value of your car suddenly become $10 million, b/c $25K is chump change to him?