A California jury just made Starbucks cough up $50 million after a drive-thru disaster left a man with catastrophic burns—down there. The verdict has sparked debate over corporate responsibility, drive-thru safety, and whether hot coffee lawsuits are back in fashion.
The Incident: When a Latte Turns Into a Lawsuit
Michael Garcia, a 43-year-old FedEx delivery driver, pulled up to a Starbucks drive-thru in 2018, expecting a quick caffeine fix. Instead, he got third-degree burns when a barista handed him a tea with an unsecured lid—sending scalding liquid straight onto his lap, per the Economic Times.
The burns were so severe that Garcia required skin grafts and multiple surgeries to repair the damage. The injuries weren’t just painful—they were life-altering. Garcia claimed he was left with permanent disfigurement and ongoing pain from the accident.
After years of legal battles, a California jury ruled in Garcia’s favor on March 18, 2025, awarding him $50 million in damages. The verdict, delivered in San Diego Superior Court, is one of the largest ever against Starbucks.
Starbucks’ Response: Damage Control Mode
Starbucks isn’t taking this one lying down. The coffee giant called the damages “excessive” and signaled plans to appeal.
“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 awarded to be excessive.” – Starbucks official statement (via People)
The company argues that accidents happen and that Garcia should bear some responsibility for handling the drink. But the jury wasn’t buying it, holding Starbucks 100% liable for the burns and long-term harm.
Attorney’s Take: Starbucks Got What It Deserved
Garcia’s attorney, Nick Rowley, slammed Starbucks for failing to take responsibility, saying the lawsuit was never about money but about accountability.
“No amount of money can undo the permanent catastrophic harm he has suffered, but this jury verdict is a critical step in holding Starbucks accountable for flagrant disregard for customer safety.” – Nick Rowley, Garcia’s attorney (People)
According to Rowley, the Starbucks employee admitted the lid wasn’t secured properly before handing Garcia the drink, proving negligence.
Hot Coffee Lawsuits: McDonald’s Déjà Vu?
This case echoes the infamous 1994 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit, where Stella Liebeck was awarded $2.9 million after suffering third-degree burns from a coffee spill. That case was ridiculed as frivolous—until people learned McDonald’s was serving coffee at a dangerous 180–190°F.
The Starbucks case revives the debate: Are coffee chains serving drinks too hot, or are customers just careless?
Legal experts say the $50 million award will likely be reduced on appeal, as was the case with McDonald’s, where the payout was eventually cut to $640,000. But even with a reduction, the ruling sets a precedent for future lawsuits against coffee chains.
Starbucks’ Legal Troubles Keep Piling Up
This isn’t Starbucks’ first time getting burned in court. The company has faced multiple lawsuits over hot drink spills, including:
-
2024: Muriel Evans sued Starbucks after suffering burns from an overheated coffee with a faulty lid in California.
-
2023: A Florida woman claimed her Starbucks latte was so hot it melted the plastic lid, spilling onto her hand and causing second-degree burns.
-
2017: A Colorado jury awarded $100,000 to a woman who was burned when a Starbucks barista failed to properly secure a drink lid.
With this $50 million verdict making headlines, Starbucks might be forced to rethink its handling of hot beverages—or risk more costly courtroom battles.
What Happens Next?
Starbucks plans to appeal the verdict, arguing the payout is excessive. But with mounting public scrutiny and social media backlash, the company might reassess its safety measures before another lawsuit lands on its lap.
Should Starbucks lower its drink temperatures, improve lids, or is this just a case of bad luck?
Weigh In: Did Starbucks Deserve to Get Burned?
Was the $50 million verdict fair, or is it lawsuit culture run amok? Should Starbucks cool down its drinks, or is this just another case of a frivolous lawsuit spiraling out of control?
Drop your thoughts below or ping us on X @DREZZEDNews—I’m here to deliver the facts and hear your unfiltered take on this piping-hot legal brew.
News compiled by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B. D/REZZED Gaming News is part of Clownfish TV. Subscribe to our newsletter —
D/REZZED provides Balanced and Based Gaming, Pop Culture, and Paranormal News. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of hosts, editors, other contributors, affiliates, sponsors, or advertisers. Our articles are human-edited but may utilize AI assistance for research and grammar. Articles may include affiliate links; we may earn commissions on purchases made through these links. Any products or services received for review are disclosed, as are any sponsored posts.
ClownfishTV.com strives to be an apolitical, balanced and based pop culture news outlet. However, our contributors are entitled to their individual opinions. Author opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of our video hosts, other site contributors, site editors, affiliates, sponsors or advertisers. This website contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. We disclaim products or services we have received for review purposes, as well as sponsored posts.
