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.
That McDonald’s case is going to fuck them up. It’s clear precedent for a largely similar case. The extreme publicity around it also means Starbucks can’t claim ignorance of the danger of hot coffee via the drive thru as any sort of defense.
Black tea needs to be brewed pretty close to boiling, and even green tea is brewed at 185, the same temp as the McDonald’s coffee incident. I don’t know how you can brew tea to order and hand it to someone a moment later without it still being at almost the exact same temperature. Tea also needs 3-5 minutes to steep, and you can’t hold up a drive through just to hand it over.
I’m not much for Starbucks, so don’t take this as me defending them, but I think most honest people would have trouble articulating why this merits a $50mm lawsuit. Imagine a similar ruling coming down on your local cafe.
A reminder that for the McDonald’s claim, she only wanted her medical bills covered, it was McDonald’s that refused a much smaller claim of some tens of thousands and instead insisted on taking it to court. Plus they had been advised numerous times previously from customers about burns due to their decision to maintain the temp of their brewed coffee so high for so long after it was made, solely to minimize profit loss. They were scraping pennies and ignoring customer warnings.
“Starbucks offered $30m to settle but wanted confidentiality. We said we would settle for $30m without confidentiality and only if Starbucks agreed to publicly apologize and promise to change policy to prevent this from happening again,”
Starbucks offered the guy $30M with a confidentiality agreement. They were already clearly thinking it warranted an amount in that region, which would only be if they thought they could be liable for even more.
This is just straight up false. I regularly brew black and herbal teas at 70-75°C (158-167°F) if I’m in a rush. It steeps long before cooling to a drinkable temperature. I haven’t tried brewing green tea this way but I doubt it’s much different.
Sun tea is brewed barely above ambient temperature (although that of course takes hours to steep).
I get if you are doing something different personally, but its literally the recommendation on the box. When I was learning about coffee I found that water into the brew basket or pour over at 185 would produce a terrible sour flavor, and that is well known in specialty coffee. Tea seems to be more forgiving, but I still let my water hit a boil before I brew mine. First result on google for a tea shop states the same thing: https://artfultea.com/blogs/101/tea-brewing-temperature-guide
I’m all for ganging up on mega-corps and watching them squirm when a lawsuit comes around, but it may have been a bit extreme to call my statement false. If Starbucks did anything wrong here, to me it was the cup not being seated in the carrier, not the water temperature.
Black tea needs to be brewed pretty close to boiling, and even green tea is brewed at 185, the same temp as the McDonald’s coffee incident
What the f- oh, American units
I was wondering what the heck kind of green tea needed that kind of treatment, lol
Seems like a pretty solid “fuck Starbucks” decision. Good job jury.
The incident:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rmUichSTMfckx3NkZ4rcv-XxibJo2-o4/view2nd Cup is at 2:30 and third immediately after.
Looks to me like she at least attempted to seat the cup firmly in the tray. So IDK?
As sad as this is for the driver, it seemed stable enough when she handed it over, but the driver unbalanced them.
EDIT:
On my 3rd review of the situation, it seems the 3rd cup looks taller in the tray. If they are supposed to be similar size cups, it is clearly not seated like the others.Still I’d say the driver does carry some of the blame, he fumbled it after he had 100% control of the tray.
And although the driver can never be restored by any amount, $50m seems insane by the standards of “normal” countries.
Much like the insane judgements on copyright infringement, and death penalty to people who turn out to be innocent in USA.Maybe ask yourself this: If the driver was drunk, and fumbled the tray, would that still be the fault of the server?
Now he probably wasn’t drunk, but it was still him that fumbled the tray, maybe because he wasn’t focused?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.
