BlogLine
Hot coffee…round two
4/10/25
A Los Angeles County jury awarded $50 million to a plaintiff who suffered burns to his groin and genital region after receiving a hot drink from a Starbucks drive-thru window. Michael Garcia, the plaintiff, contended that a Starbucks employee failed to properly secure the hot beverage in a drink carrier, which was handed to the plaintiff through the drive-thru window. According to the plaintiff, the employee’s failure to properly secure the hot drink in the drink carrier created a foreseeable danger to the plaintiff. The plaintiff contends he suffered severe burns, nerve damage and permanent disfigurement of his genitals. The plaintiff underwent burn treatment and multiple skin grafting surgeries. Defendant Starbucks contended that the plaintiff’s failure to exercise ordinary care was the cause of the plaintiff’s harm and damages.
Prior to trial, Starbucks offered the plaintiff $3 million before trial and then $30 million after the jury found Starbucks liable in the first phase of the bifurcated trial. The plaintiff accepted the $30 million offer contingent upon Starbucks issuing the plaintiff an apology and revising its safety procedures. Starbucks declined the plaintiff’s counteroffer and proceeded to the damages phase of the trial. In addition to the $50 million verdict, Starbucks is expected to owe the plaintiff approximately $61 million, inclusive of pre-judgment interest and costs. Counsel for Starbucks stated that they intend to appeal the decision.
This verdict is a reminder of the real risk that excessive verdicts pose to defendants at trial (often termed “nuclear verdicts”). It is imperative that defense counsel anticipate and prepare oppositions to popular plaintiff tactics, such as Reptile Theory. Some effective defenses to these tactics include narrowing the issues in the complaint with appropriate responsive pleadings, effective use of objections throughout the duration of the case, filing of applicable motions in limine and anchoring a jury at Trial.
For any questions or further clarification, please contact Amanda M. Figueroa at amanda.figueroa@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.
Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.
Share
Save Print