Understanding why Starbucks lost the $50M hot beverage case

Last week, I had the good fortune to sit down and talk to trial lawyer Nick Rowley. Rowley is the attorney who nailed Starbucks last week for $50 million.

Many people might have rolled their eyes when they heard the description of this case on the news or on the radio. A Starbucks patron gets scalded by a hot beverage. Everyone knows Starbucks sells hot drinks. Is that worth $50 million?

When you describe it that way, it sounds sinister. So let’s describe it using nothing but the good old truth.

Michael Garcia was a Postmates driver picking up an order at a Starbucks drive-through. 1.4 seconds after the barista passed him a tray filled with four venti beverages through the window, one of the beverages tipped over. It turns out, the medicine ball had not been properly “seated” into the tray—that is, pushed all the way down so it would not tilt over.  The lid had also not been properly secured.

The result? Michael Garcia was scalded and suffered third degree burns to his thighs and genitals.  The entire incident was captured on surveillance footage. What was supposed to be just another ride to make a few bucks ended up changing Mr. Garcia’s life.

 Throughout the entire case, Starbucks’s approach was to deny deny deny. Starbucks argued that it was not liable for Mr. Garcia’s injuries because the barista had not actually been the one who spilled the drink on him. Never mind that she did not fasten the lid properly. Never mind that she did not seat the drink properly. Never mind that Starbucks has internal policies requiring their baristas to churn out one drink every 45 seconds, sacrificing customer and employee safety for sales volumes. Never mind the skin grafts and surgeries to the most vulnerable part of Mr. Garcia’s body.

Doesn’t everyone know that coffee and tea are hot? Yes. Coffee is hot. That’s why many establishments double-cup their drinks or provide protective sleeves. That’s why piping hot beverages have lids and usually aren’t filled to the very top. That’s why when ordering more beverages than your hands can safely grip, customers are given trays. These safety precautions are useless if employees don’t actually follow them.

 But $50 million? That’s excessive, isn’t it? No. Large verdicts don’t appear out of nowhere. They are a response to conduct that the jury rejects. Starbucks could have easily settled this case years ago. The company turned down a $19 million settlement offer two years ago.

Starbucks offered Mr. Garcia $30 million to settle the case just before trial. The offer required a confidentiality clause. Mr. Garcia wanted Starbucks to change their corporate policies and toapologize. That was too tall a task for the coffee-chain behemoth.  Three members of the jury wanted to award Mr. Garcia more money than the $50 million he was awarded. 

Frivolous lawsuits are not the problem in America—frivolous defenses are. When corporations who have the power to prevent serious harms shirk their responsibilities to consumers, expect 12 members of the jury to hold them accountable.

If you or someone you know was injured as a result of a restaurant spilling a hot beverage-my office is ready to assist, 24/6.

[A longer version of this article recently appeared in the Daily Journal.]