In a historic ruling, a California jury has ordered Starbucks to pay $50 million in damages to a delivery driver who was badly injured by a spilling of hot tea at a drive-thru Starbucks. The accident in 2018 raised questions about corporate accountability and food and beverage industry safety protocols.
The 38-year-old delivery man stopped by a Los Angeles County Starbucks drive-thru on Oct. 5, 2018. After the barista gave him a hot cup of tea, he tried to pull off the lid so he could sweeten it. The tea splashed into his lap and produced second and third-degree burns on his groin, thighs, and buttocks. He was in the hospital for 11 days and required numerous skin graft procedures.
The suit claimed Starbucks served the tea at a very high temperature and neglected to issue warnings about the possible harm. The attorneys for the plaintiff claimed the lid of the cup was not tightly closed, resulting in the spill. They also said Starbucks had knowledge of previous incidents but didn’t take sufficient action to prevent them.
At trial, testimony was given that Starbucks teaches its baristas to serve hot drinks between 190°F and 200°F (88°C to 93°C). Experts provided testimony that liquids at this temperature can produce third-degree burns within seconds of contact with the skin. The plaintiff’s lawyers contended that serving drinks at these high temperatures without proper warnings created a substantial risk to consumers.
Starbucks’ defense had argued the company was following industry norms for beverage temperatures and that the plaintiff was in part responsible for the accident. They asserted the plaintiff ought to have been more careful when pouring the hot drink. The jury, however, held Starbucks mostly liable for the accident and cited negligence in serving the tea at an extremely high temperature and not checking if the lid was on securely.
The $50 million verdict consists of both compensatory and punitive damages, indicating the jury’s desire to hold Starbucks responsible for the physical and emotional injury suffered by the plaintiff and also deter future such conduct. Experts say that in personal injury cases concerning the spilling of hot beverages, a verdict this high is not common and indicates the extent of the injury suffered by the plaintiff and the negligence perceived on the part of Starbucks.
This case finds similarities with the infamous 1992 suit against McDonald’s when a woman received $2.9 million after being burned by third-degree burns due to dropped coffee. Both instances highlight the need for serving hot drinks at safety temperatures and giving suitable warnings to consumers.
In reaction to the ruling, Starbucks issued a statement sympathizing with the plaintiff but stating its intention to appeal the ruling. The company reasserted its dedication to ensuring customer safety and added that it regularly reviews and revises its safety procedures in order to avoid such occurrences.
The result of this suit could encourage other restaurants and beverage outlets to reassess their hot drink temperature policies and customer safety protocols. Companies may want to include further staff training in properly securing lids and giving clear notification of the possible hazards of hot drinks.
For the plaintiff, the verdict is a measure of justice for the pain and suffering he has lived through the last few years.
He and his lawyers hoped that such a large award would effect real reforms in the practices of the industry to bring down the probability of a repetition of such an incident.
While it works its way through possible appeals, it remains a stark reminder of the incredible duty companies owe to their customers for safety and well-being.
