Marina
A Los Angeles jury has awarded $50 million to Michael Garcia, a man who suffered severe burns after a hot tea spilled on his lap in a Starbucks drive-through in 2020.
The incident, which occurred at a Starbucks location in Exposition Park, resulted in third-degree burns to Garcia’s groin area, leaving him with permanent disfigurement.
Garcia’s legal team claims that Starbucks’ negligence in securing the lid on the drink caused the horrific accident, and this verdict is being seen as a critical step in holding the company accountable for its actions.
The Incident and Its Aftermath
The incident occurred on February 8, 2020, when Michael Garcia, who was working as a delivery driver, ordered a hot tea from the Starbucks drive-through. According to Garcia’s attorneys, the hot tea spilled on his lap as he was handed the drink, causing severe burns.
The third-degree burns affected his groin area, and Garcia had to undergo two skin graft surgeries to repair the damage. His legal team claims that the burns were so severe that Garcia now suffers from permanent disfigurement and lifelong pain.
After the accident, Garcia filed a lawsuit against Starbucks, blaming the company for the incident.
Garcia’s legal team alleges that the Starbucks employee who served him failed to properly secure the lid on the hot tea, leading to the catastrophic spill.
The lawsuit pointed to negligence and failure to ensure customer safety as the main reasons for the incident.
The Lawsuit and Legal Outcome
The case went to trial, and after careful deliberation, the Los Angeles County jury awarded $50 million in damages to Garcia.
His attorneys, including Nick Rowley, spoke about how the award was a critical step in ensuring accountability.
Rowley said, “Michael Garcia’s life has been forever changed. No amount of money can undo the permanent catastrophic harm he has suffered, but this jury verdict is a critical step in holding Starbucks accountable for flagrant disregard for customer safety and failure to accept responsibility.”
While the jury found Starbucks to be at fault, the company expressed its disagreement with the decision. Starbucks issued a statement saying, “We disagree with the jury’s decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages awarded to be excessive.”
Starbucks also revealed that it had offered $3 million to Garcia before the trial began, an offer that was rejected by Garcia’s legal team.
Impact on Garcia’s Life
The impact of the incident on Garcia’s life has been profound. In addition to the physical pain from the burns and the subsequent surgeries, Garcia now faces long-term emotional and psychological effects.
The permanent disfigurement and loss of quality of life have been incredibly difficult for him to cope with.
Garcia’s attorneys emphasize that while no amount of money can undo the harm done, the $50 million award will help provide for his medical care, recovery, and emotional well-being moving forward.
Starbucks Plans to Appeal the Verdict
Despite the jury’s decision, Starbucks has announced that it plans to appeal the verdict. The company has expressed its disagreement with both the ruling and the damages awarded. Starbucks argues that the verdict was unfair and that the damage amount is excessive.
This case has drawn attention to the responsibility that businesses have in ensuring the safety of their customers, particularly in situations where hot beverages are served.
Experts suggest that companies like Starbucks must take extra precautions to ensure that lids on hot drinks are secure and that employees are trained to handle potentially dangerous situations.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of customer safety and the responsibility businesses have to prevent accidents that can cause serious harm.
Michael Garcia’s life has been forever changed due to the severe injuries he sustained in the Starbucks incident. The $50 million award will help him with his recovery, but it also highlights the need for companies to ensure that proper safety protocols are followed.
As Starbucks plans its appeal, the case has sparked a wider conversation about accountability and the rights of consumers in the face of corporate negligence.