According to France24, the incident occurred in February 2020 when a customer named Michael Garcia received three large cups of drinks from a restaurant employee in California (USA). According to Mr. Garcia's lawyers, one of the three cups of tea was not properly placed in a cardboard tray. While he was holding a tray, the cup of tea was overturned and dumped on him, causing third-degree burns in the closed area, groin and inner thighs.
After the accident, Garcia was hospitalized and underwent many skin transplants. For the past 5 years, he has lived with both physical and psychological damage.
However, Starbucks denied responsibility and initially offered a settlement of $30 million but refused to publicly apologize and change the policy as requested by Mr. Garcia.
When the case was brought to trial, a Los Angeles jury on March 14 ordered Starbucks to pay $50 million in damages. Garcias lawyers say the figure could exceed $60 million when charging additional interest, legal fees and other fees. They criticized Galaxy coffee for denying responsibility for the past five years and trying to avoid compensation.
"This court is proof of the use of unreasonable arguments and blaming the victims. We are proud of Garcia for daring to speak up and defend our rights," the statement from the group of lawyers said.
A Starbucks representative said they would appeal. Jaci Anderson, director of corporate communications at Champions League, said: "We sympathize with Mr. Garcia but disagree with the verdict and consider the compensation to be excessive." She also stressed that Starbucks always adhere to the highest safety standards, including the handling of hot drinks.
The lawsuit is reminiscent of a famous case in 1994 when McDonald's was sued in New Mexico. Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, was paid more than $2.8 million for pouring hot coffee on her.
Although the compensation amount was reduced after the appeal, the lawsuit became a symbol in the debate on reforming the law on compensation and was often mentioned as an example of abuse of litigation.
