Case Highlight: Michael Garcia v. Starbucks Corporation

Wyatt Smith ‘26

On March 14th, 2025, a California jury awarded plaintiff Michael Garcia $50 million in damages sustained from having hot tea spilled on him at a Starbucks drive-thru. It was February 8, 2020, when delivery driver Michael Garcia was picking up an order of three hot “medicine ball” teas. Security footage shows the Starbucks barista handing Mr. Garcia the tea, when less than two seconds later, one of the venti drinks slips out of the drink holder and spills onto Mr. Garcia’s lap. Mr. Garcia had no time to react; the damage was as immediate as it was severe. Mr. Garcia was immediately rushed to the hospital, where he was treated for 3rd degree burns on his penis, groin, and inner thighs. At the burn center, Mr. Garcia underwent two skin grafts, as well as an agonizing procedure to remove the nerves from his penis. He had to receive months of treatment for his injuries, and to this day feels pain at even the slightest amount of friction to the region. Mr. Garcia was 25-years-old at the time of the incident. 

Mr. Garcia almost immediately put together a legal team and filed a lawsuit against Starbucks, claiming that the damage had affected “every facet of his life”. Starbucks’ legal team argued instead that because treatment for the burns had ended a few months after the incident, Mr. Garcia’s ongoing health complications could very well be unrelated, potentially even due to his early onset diabetes. Unfortunately for Starbucks, the jury would not see it this way.

The trial was a bifurcated trial, meaning that it took place in two separate phases: a “liability phase”, where the court sought to establish who was at fault, and a “damages phase”, where the objective was to determine how much money in damages should be awarded to the Mr. Garcia. During the liability phase, the jury unanimously ruled that Mr. Garcia was not liable for the incident, and ruled 11-1 that he showed no negligence whatsoever. In the damages phase, the jury ruled 9-3 (the minimum number required in California) that Mr. Garcia be awarded $50,000,000 in damages from Starbucks. 

If this sounds familiar to you, you’re probably thinking of the landmark 1994 negligence case Liebeck v. Mcdonald’s Restaurants. In this case, similarly to Garcia v. Starbucks Corps., hot coffee spilled onto 79-year-old Stella Liebeck’s lap, resulting in 3rd-degree burns and two years of medical treatment. Liebeck initially sought $20,000 from McDonald’s to cover her medical expenses, but was only offered $800 by the fast-food giant during pretrial settlement negotiations. So, with no alternatives, Ms. Liebeck sued. 

During the nine-day trial, the court applied an important legal test to the evidence. Liebeck’s lawyers discovered that McDonald’s required its restaurants (both franchise and company-owned) to hold coffee between 180–190 °F, just shy of boiling point. McDonald’s attorneys argued that it was served this way so that it would stay warm for a long commute to work. Liebeck’s attorneys argued that this was much too hot, introducing expert evidence that a liquid at that temperature could cause third-degree burns in as little as two seconds. So who was right?

To determine whether McDonald’s was negligent, the court applied the reasonable person standard, and it’s exactly how it sounds: Would a reasonable person have served someone coffee that could cause third-degree burns in two seconds in a flimsy paper cup? The jury said no. McDonald's was responsible for the incident, and breached their duty of care by serving such hot coffee without a sufficient warning. The jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, and an additional $2.7 million in punitive damages, or damages intended to punish the wrongdoing. At the time, this number was equivalent to about two days of McDonald’s coffee sales. Similar logic was applied to Mr. Garcia’s case, where the negligence went a step further, with the barista literally spilling the tea on him.

The Liebeck case opened up a whole new arena in the court of public opinion with regards to tort reform. While many applauded the fact that McDonald’s had been held responsible for their negligence, others saw the $2.7 million verdict as excessive. Corporations also capitalized on the opportunity, painting the lawsuit as a frivolous and unnecessary litigation. In other words, someone looking to sue for a quick buck. This led many to advocate for tort reform, which would lessen the ability of plaintiffs to recover punitive damages from civil lawsuits. Mr. Garcia’s case, with its staggering $50 million verdict, will surely spark similar discourse. 

Advocates for punitive damages argue that the threat of financial loss keeps companies accountable for their actions, as the principal interest of most corporations is profit. Interestingly, in this case, Starbucks had two opportunities to exchange financial accountability for spoken accountability, that is publicly taking responsibility for the incident. First, Starbucks offered to settle the case pretrial for $3 million, which Mr. Garcia turned down. Second, after litigation had begun, Starbucks came to the table and offered an enormous $30 million settlement, and Mr. Garcia accepted on one small condition: that Starbucks send out an employee memo on safety, and accept responsibility. They refused. The total amount paid by Starbucks is now expected to be over $60 million including legal fees, more than twice the amount that they would have paid had they accepted responsibility, and sent that memo. Starbucks has said that they plan to appeal the verdict, and no damages will be paid until said appeal happens. In the appellate court, it is  quite possible that the staggering award will be reduced.

Still, this lawsuit opens discourse for some important questions in U.S. civil law. Should lawsuits be only for the purpose of recovering specified damages, or should there be a punitive aspect as well? Is a $60 million award an inordinate remedy for the pain of one man, or is it a necessary means of keeping companies accountable? If punitive damages are capped, what should determine that limit? 

Wyatt Smith is a junior majoring in international business.

Sources

Barreto, Z. (2025, March 18). $50 Million Awarded in Starbucks Burn Injury Lawsuit. Expert Institute. https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/starbucks-burn-injury-lawsuit/ 

Bieber, C. (2023, February 3). What is Tort Reform? (2025 Guide). Forbes Magazine. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/tort-reform/ 

Cetera, M., & Johnson, J. (2024, August 26). Reasonable Person Standard: Legal Definition And Examples. Forbes Magazine. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/reasonable-person-standard/ 

Feather, B., & Madani, D. (2025, March 16). Man awarded $50 million after Starbucks hot tea causes permanent disfigurement. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-awarded-50-million-starbucks-hot-tea-rcna196616 

Kanungo, P. (2025, March 17). What happened to Michael Garcia? Details of Starbucks $50 million lawsuit settlement explained. Sportskeeda Magazine. https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-what-happened-michael-garcia-details-starbucks-50-million-lawsuit-settlement-explained 

Martin, S. (2025, March 17) Jury awards $50 million to delivery driver after hot Starbucks drink scalds genitals. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/03/17/starbucks-penis-burns-jury-award-michael-garcia/82497032007/ 

Michael Garcia vs. Starbucks Corporation, No. 20STCV10214 (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles March 14, 2025).

The Verdict: How the Hot Coffee Lawsuit Led to Tort Reform. (2020, September 10). The Carlson Law Firm. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from https://www.carlsonattorneys.com/25-years-of-tort-reform-reed-morgan-on-liebeck-v-mcdonalds/ 

Wong, B., Ramirez, A. (2024, May 31) What Are Punitive Damages? Definition & Examples. Forbes Magazine. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/punitive-damages/