Starbucks ordered to pay $50 million to driver burned by hot coffee


This recording was made using enhanced software.

Full story

  • A California man won a multi-million dollar judgment against coffee giant Starbucks. Michael Garcia claimed he was badly burned when a hot drink spilled on him while he was at a drive-through in Los Angeles.
  • A jury awarded him $50 million.
  • Starbucks said it sympathizes with the man but disagrees with the amount awarded. The company also adhered to the highest safety standards when handling hot drinks.

Full Story

A California jury ordered Starbucks to pay big bucks for an incident that left a delivery driver burned several years ago. Jurors awarded the man $50 million.

What happened to the man who led the lawsuit?

The driver, Michael Garcia, alleged that he was picking up drinks at a drive-through at a Los Angeles Starbucks when an improperly secured lid led to a spill that left him severely burned.

According to his attorney, Garcia was picking up three beverages, and one of the hot drinks was not fully secured in the container. When the barista handed Garcia the order, the hot drink fell out of the container and spilled onto his lap.

What type of injuries did Garcia say he suffered?

The lawsuit claimed Garcia suffered severe burns, disfigurement and debilitating nerve damage to his genitals. It said that Garcia suffered damage including, but not limited to, physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and emotional distress.

In 2020, Garcia filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court, accusing Starbucks of breaching its duty of care by failing to secure the lid.

What is the reaction from Starbucks?

Starbucks released a statement after the decision.

“We sympathize with Mr. Garcia, but we disagree with the jury’s decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages to be excessive,” the company said.

Starbucks said it intends to appeal the $50 million verdict and has consistently upheld the highest safety standards in handling hot beverages.

Tags: , , ,

Bias comparison

  • Media outlets on the left framed the Starbucks settlement as a "win" for the individual, emphasizing Starbucks being "ordered to pay" for "permanent disfigurement," thus highlighting corporate accountability and victim advocacy.
  • Not enough coverage from media outlets in the center to provide a bias comparison.
  • Media outlets on the right, while acknowledging the "life-altering burns," de-emphasized the victim's perspective and highlighted the large settlement amount and details like the settlement offers, potentially framing it as excessive litigation.

Media landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

183 total sources

Key points from the Left

  • Starbucks has been ordered to pay Michael Garcia nearly $50 million after he was severely burned by a spilled drink from their drive-thru.
  • A jury in California found that Starbucks failed in its duty of care, as Garcia's injuries resulted from an employee's negligence during a drive-thru pickup on Feb. 8, 2020.
  • Garcia has experienced ongoing physical pain, mental anguish and permanent disfigurement as a result of the incident, according to his attorneys.
  • Starbucks plans to appeal the jury's decision, stating they disagree with the finding of fault and the amount awarded to Garcia.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Center

No summary available because of a lack of coverage.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Right

  • A Los Angeles jury awarded Michael Garcia $50 million after he suffered life-altering burns from a spilled cup of hot tea at a Starbucks drive-thru on Feb. 8, 2020.
  • Garcia sustained third-degree burns and permanent injuries, with ongoing pain requiring multiple surgeries.
  • The lawsuit accused Starbucks of breaching safety duties by using a poorly constructed lid for the hot drink, which contributed to the incident.
  • Starbucks plans to appeal the jury's decision and maintains that it was not at fault for the incident.

Report an issue with this summary

Other (sources without bias rating):

Powered by Ground News™
This recording was made using enhanced software.

Full story

  • A California man won a multi-million dollar judgment against coffee giant Starbucks. Michael Garcia claimed he was badly burned when a hot drink spilled on him while he was at a drive-through in Los Angeles.
  • A jury awarded him $50 million.
  • Starbucks said it sympathizes with the man but disagrees with the amount awarded. The company also adhered to the highest safety standards when handling hot drinks.

Full Story

A California jury ordered Starbucks to pay big bucks for an incident that left a delivery driver burned several years ago. Jurors awarded the man $50 million.

What happened to the man who led the lawsuit?

The driver, Michael Garcia, alleged that he was picking up drinks at a drive-through at a Los Angeles Starbucks when an improperly secured lid led to a spill that left him severely burned.

According to his attorney, Garcia was picking up three beverages, and one of the hot drinks was not fully secured in the container. When the barista handed Garcia the order, the hot drink fell out of the container and spilled onto his lap.

What type of injuries did Garcia say he suffered?

The lawsuit claimed Garcia suffered severe burns, disfigurement and debilitating nerve damage to his genitals. It said that Garcia suffered damage including, but not limited to, physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and emotional distress.

In 2020, Garcia filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court, accusing Starbucks of breaching its duty of care by failing to secure the lid.

What is the reaction from Starbucks?

Starbucks released a statement after the decision.

“We sympathize with Mr. Garcia, but we disagree with the jury’s decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages to be excessive,” the company said.

Starbucks said it intends to appeal the $50 million verdict and has consistently upheld the highest safety standards in handling hot beverages.

Tags: , , ,

Bias comparison

  • Media outlets on the left framed the Starbucks settlement as a "win" for the individual, emphasizing Starbucks being "ordered to pay" for "permanent disfigurement," thus highlighting corporate accountability and victim advocacy.
  • Not enough coverage from media outlets in the center to provide a bias comparison.
  • Media outlets on the right, while acknowledging the "life-altering burns," de-emphasized the victim's perspective and highlighted the large settlement amount and details like the settlement offers, potentially framing it as excessive litigation.

Media landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

183 total sources

Key points from the Left

  • Starbucks has been ordered to pay Michael Garcia nearly $50 million after he was severely burned by a spilled drink from their drive-thru.
  • A jury in California found that Starbucks failed in its duty of care, as Garcia's injuries resulted from an employee's negligence during a drive-thru pickup on Feb. 8, 2020.
  • Garcia has experienced ongoing physical pain, mental anguish and permanent disfigurement as a result of the incident, according to his attorneys.
  • Starbucks plans to appeal the jury's decision, stating they disagree with the finding of fault and the amount awarded to Garcia.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Center

No summary available because of a lack of coverage.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Right

  • A Los Angeles jury awarded Michael Garcia $50 million after he suffered life-altering burns from a spilled cup of hot tea at a Starbucks drive-thru on Feb. 8, 2020.
  • Garcia sustained third-degree burns and permanent injuries, with ongoing pain requiring multiple surgeries.
  • The lawsuit accused Starbucks of breaching safety duties by using a poorly constructed lid for the hot drink, which contributed to the incident.
  • Starbucks plans to appeal the jury's decision and maintains that it was not at fault for the incident.

Report an issue with this summary

Other (sources without bias rating):

Powered by Ground News™