Jury awards $66.5m to California man burned by Starbucks tea

Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox

The man underwent skin grafts on his genitals after a hot tea spilled on him.

The man underwent skin grafts on his genitals after a hot tea spilt on him.

PHOTO: AFP

Johnny Diaz

Google Preferred Source badge

- A jury in California awarded US$50 million (S$66.5 million) in damages on March 14 to a Los Angeles delivery driver who was badly burned by a cup of hot tea that spilt into his lap at a Starbucks drive-through in 2020, court records show.

Mr Michael Garcia, now 30, received multiple skin grafts and underwent other medical treatments on his genitals after a hot tea spilt on him when he picked it up from a drive-through window in 2020, according to the negligence lawsuit, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

“This jury verdict is a critical step in holding Starbucks accountable for flagrant disregard for customer safety and failure to accept responsibility,” Mr Nick Rowley, one of Mr Garcia’s lawyers, said in a statement.

In February 2020, Mr Garcia, who was 25 at the time, was working for the delivery service Postmates when he arrived at a Starbucks in Los Angeles to pick up three venti-sized hot teas, according to his lawyers.

The lawsuit claimed that the barista who was stationed at the window “negligently failed to properly” secure one of the hot drinks into a drink carrier, which caused it to fall out of the container and into Mr Garcia’s lap.

Video from inside the store captured the episode and shows Mr Garcia writhing in pain as he pulls away.

His lawyers said the experience left him with third-degree burns to his penis, groin and inner thighs, and he was transported to an emergency room.

Since he was hospitalised and treated, he “has lived for five years with the disfigurement, pain, dysfunction and psychological harm caused by the burns”, his lawyers said.

In a statement on March 16, Starbucks said that although it sympathised with Mr Garcia, the company planned to appeal the jury’s award.

“We disagree with the jury’s decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages awarded to be excessive,” Ms Jaci Anderson, director of corporate communications, said in the statement. NYTIMES

See more on