Starbucks ordered to pay $50 million for hot tea spill
Lawyers for Michael Garcia said the server who handed him three super-sized drinks in February 2020 did not push one of them into the cardboard cupholder properly.
When he took the tray, the drink tipped over, "causing third degree burns to his penis, groin, and inner thighs," according to a statement from Trial Lawyers for Justice.
"After a hospitalisation and multiple skin grafts, Michael has lived for five years with the disfigurement, pain, dysfunction, and psychological harm caused by the burns."
The firm, which specialises in no-win-no-fee claims, said Starbucks had denied responsibility for Garcia's suffering, but before a jury trial had offered to settle for $30 million.
However, the coffee giant balked at the demand for a public apology and a change in policy that Garcia wanted, so the case went to trial.
A jury in Los Angeles on Friday awarded him $50 million, a figure his attorneys said would eventually cost Starbucks more than $60 million once pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees are added.
"Starbucks Corporation consistently denied responsibility for five years, all the way up to and through trial, and attempted to escape responsibility," the lawyers' statement said.
"The trial was a perfect example of frivolous defenses and victim-blaming.
"We are proud of Michael for standing up for himself and having the courage to tell his story."
A spokesperson for Starbucks said the company would appeal the award.
"We sympathise 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," Jaci Anderson, director of corporate communications, said in a statement to AFP.
"We have always been committed to the highest safety standards in our stores, including the handling of hot drinks."
The case is redolent of a 1994 landmark legal action against McDonald's in New Mexico, when 79-year-old Stella Liebeck was awarded over $2.8 million after spilling hot coffee on herself.
Although the award was reduced on appeal, the Liebeck case became a touchstone issue in US tort reform, and was often mocked as an example of how readily Americans resort to the law.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
More Americans are turning to Italy's ‘dolce vita' for memorable weddings
James Atkinson and Samantha Fortino toured a Tuscan vineyard and learned to make pasta and a Bolognese sauce alongside their family and friends in Florence. Atkinson discovered a penchant for chianti, while Fortino fell for Italy's hugo spritz — a cocktail that posed no risk of staining her wedding dress on July 24. Italy has hosted a number of star-studded weddings in the past decade, most recently Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez 's extravaganza in Venice. Away from the spotlight, tens of thousands of ordinary Americans have set their sights on the country for their special day in recent years. 'Weddings in America can be a little too grand and a little bit too big and it ends up not really being about the couple,' said Fortino, 28, a neonatal nurse from Skaneateles, New York. 'We both just really wanted something intimate and meaningful.' Over 15,000 foreign couples wed in Italy last year, up 64% from 2019, the year before the pandemic, according to market research from the Center of Tourist Studies of Florence. Growth was led by US couples, who account for almost one-third of that total. Italy was the top international destination for American couples after Mexico, according to Maryland-based wedding planning website The Knot. Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez leave for their pre wedding reception, in Venice, Italy, on June 26, 2025. File/Associated Press For many Americans, Italy embodies the simple, beautiful romance of a bygone era. Weather is balmy and its varied landscapes, from the sea to the mountains, stunning. The food is familiar and crowd-pleasing. But perhaps the biggest driver of the recent uptick is ample opportunity for a range of outings, which together with the wedding event are alluring for those on a quest for unique, memorable moments — part of a consumer trend termed 'the experience economy.' 'In the United States, everything is just more expensive for one night and we wanted to make an experience, so we did two nights here,' said Atkinson, 31, who owns a concrete company. 'It just seemed like way more worth it to us to do that and make a trip out of it with our family, our loved ones.' One guest who had never visited Italy was ecstatic about the invite, and took advantage to tack on side trips, first to Venice and then with the wedding crew to Cinque Terre. Another, Gary Prochna, nearly didn't attend because of work piling up at his paving company. He eventually came around and was floored by the venue - a 15th-century villa with a sweeping view over Florence and its famous Duomo. George Clooney, flanked by his wife Amal Alamuddin, waves from a water-taxi after leaving the city hall in Venice, Italy, on Sept.29, 2014. File/Associated Press 'I got married in the United States and our venue was very nice. I thought — until this moment — we had the best wedding,' said Prochna, 68, adding that he now hopes his daughters will get hitched abroad. Marcy Blum, a prominent luxury event planner based in Manhattan, said almost 90% of the weddings she plans are in Italy. 'The reason Italy is so popular is because that's where your guests want to go,' she said. 'You send an invitation that you're getting married in Capri or Positano and everybody comes. Everybody. They want to come. Nobody cancels.' Jack Ezon, CEO of Embark Beyond, a luxury travel and destination event service also based in Manhattan, said 60% of his company's events were outside the US before the pandemic. Today it's almost 90%, nearly all split evenly between Italy and France. The threat of tariffs under President Donald Trump has given destination weddings a boost. Ezon has moved six events from the US to Europe this year, because people were afraid tariffs on drinks would cause their bar bill to explode. The shift to destinations has benefited planners with networks across Italy and local vendors. According to Wedding Italy, the husband-and-wife team who put on the Atkinson wedding, American clients spend three times as much as Italians, due to more elaborate wedding decor and other events in their multi-day lineup. Tom Cruise (right) and Katie Holmes with their daughter Suri, who became engaged in June 2005, hold hands as they leave their hotel ahead of their wedding ceremony in Rome, Nov. 16, 2006. File/Associated Press Average spend on hometown weddings in the US was $32,000 last year, according to The Knot. By comparison, foreigners' weddings in Italy cost an average 61,500 euros ($70,600) and typically have dozens fewer guests, the Center of Tourist Studies of Florence's data showed. In the garden where the Atkinsons held their service, cypress trees swayed in the wind as the bride emerged from the chapel, beaming in her lace mermaid-silhouette gown. She walked down the aisle as speakers played the theme song to Star Wars. It was her sneaky trick to make the groom cry, and it worked like a charm. Before the exchange of rings, before the lovebirds threw their arms around one another, their officiant said: 'Traditionally I would ask: Is there any reason why this couple shouldn't be married? But for goodness' sake - we all flew to Italy and can't get our points back! So instead I'll ask: Who here approves of this union?' Cheers all around. Meanwhile, Italy agreed Thursday to a Vatican plan to turn a 430-hectare (1,000-acre) field north of Rome, once the source of controversy between the two, into a vast solar farm that will generate enough electricity to meet the needs of Vatican City and turn it into the world's first carbon-neutral state. Associated Press
Gulf Today
30-07-2025
- Gulf Today
US-EU trade deal leaves European countries unhappy
United States President Donald Trump in his vacuous hyperbole has called the US-European Union (EU) trade deal as 'the biggest deal ever made'. But for many European countries it was the best deal in a bad situation. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said, 'This agreement has succeeded in averting a trade conflict that would have hit the export-orientated German economy very hard.' EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovich told journalists, 'This is clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances.' He said that the 30 per cent tariff that Trump had threatened would have been 'much, much worse'. The deal now provides for 15 per cent tariff on all EU exports to the US, apart from buying $750 billion worth of energy, including oil, gas and nuclear from the US over the next three years. Experts say that the US will have a challenge producing so much of energy resources to sell to Europe. The EU has also pledged $600 billion in European investments in the US, a little higher than the $550 billion Japanese investments in the US. The difference is that while Japan will use the state-controlled banks to channel the flow of funds to the US, the EU has said this figure is based on the intention expressed by the European private companies. France has criticized the deal. French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou wrote on X, 'It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, brought together to affirm their common values and to defend their common interests, resigns itself to submission.' Sweden said it was the 'least bad alternative' and Spain said it was backing the agreement but 'without enthusiasm.' Wolfgang Grobe Entrup, head of the German Chemical Industry Association said, 'Those who expect a hurricane are grateful for a storm.' The US-EU trade agreement is one that has been clinched under duress by the Americans. But it is not going to be an easy agreement to implement. The EU wants to buy energy from the US. The question is whether the US has the capacity to produce enough energy to meet the demands of the EU. It seems that the US will find it difficult to sell energy to Europe to the tune of $750 billion. This is just one part of the problem. Europe will bear a heavy burden even though the US tariffs are now at 15 per cent. Before the deal, the tariff was at 2.5 per cent, which was very, very low indeed. A fair deal would have been where the rise in tariff would have been gradual, starting from 5 per cent and going up to 7.5 per cent because then it would not have hurt the business costs for Europe as well as for the American businesses and consumers buying European goods and services. Trump's shock treatment would harm the Americans as much as the Europeans. Will the Europeans keep up the present volumes of exports to the US at the present levels – $605.8 billion in 2024 – because the 15 per cent tariff will impact the exports on both the American and European ends? European companies will have to factor in the 15 per cent tariff into the price, and the American consumer will have to pay so much more. The US exports to Europe are far less at $370.2 billion in 2024 and the trade deficit is $235.6 billion. Will these figures change because of the deal? Will US exports to Europe increase, though European exports to the US are likely to fall? And the US may not be able to cover up the trade deficit. It is not a punitive deal, and it will not benefit the US.
The National
30-07-2025
- The National
Amid a chaotic Middle East policy, Trump's base is losing its love for Israel
What's the Trump doctrine? According to the White House, it's #Winning. And in many respects, they're not wrong. So far this summer, US President Donald Trump has put fears of a global trade war to bed with multiple deals, all in America's favour. He's struck at the heart of America's enemies in Tehran without putting boots on the ground or igniting the world war most in the press were predicting. But if you're sitting in the Middle East today, you could be forgiven for being confused: what exactly is the Trump administration's end game here? Lately, it feels as if the whole approach is to throw a bunch of cats in a bag and shake it. And while the President is a master at owning the narrative, he seems less aware of what America's strategic purpose or long-term goals in the Middle East actually are. Between Israel, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon and the whole of North Africa, no one arm seems to know what the other is doing. And so far, the administration hasn't seemed too concerned with defining the exact mission. In case you're wondering why that is, let me explain it to you. Most Americans don't really care about what's happening in the rest of the world. While the US is a country with enormous global influence and a huge stake in the global economy, the fact is that unless you are steeped in academia, work for a Washington think tank, or live in an international American city like New York, Miami or LA, chances are you're more concerned with your taxes, and the price of food and petrol, than what's happening oceans away. It's basic geography and it's not new. Mr Trump understands this better than anyone; he has made America First the cornerstone of two presidencies, and for him the medium is the message. He hardly bothers with legacy media anymore. The people who voted for him see 'traditional media' as irrelevant at best and, at worst, just another arm of the leftist elite. So, it's interesting then, that on the issue of Gaza, a man-made humanitarian crisis of the utmost urgency, with horrific imagery seen by millions in retweets, TikToks, Instagrams and YouTube videos, this White House has been slow to respond. Only this week, during his visit to Britain, did Mr Trump acknowledge the staggering impact of Israel's bombardment of Gaza: mass starvation. For a man who knows how to tap into trends better than anyone, it's astonishing that he's waited so long. One factor could be his frustration with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; another, the shift in America's youth. Only this week did Trump acknowledge the staggering impact of Israel's bombardment of Gaza Travelling in the US this summer, I have repeatedly heard disillusionment from Mr Trump's less aged supporters. They tell me they see Israel as a 'freeloader" and question the amount of American tax dollars and weapons flowing to a country they believe threatens US sovereignty. They say they see through the 'propaganda and lies' parroted by the talking heads of 'Zionist' television networks, citing the horrific images of death, destruction and starvation in Gaza only found online as proof that traditional news outlets are trying to sanitise the truth. Decades of network news broadcasts policed by the Federal Communications Commission, the national regulator, which sets tough guidelines for how much violence can be shown on air and when, support this narrative. And while there are no such rules for cable news, advertisers have never really been interested in product placement wrapped around scenes of gore. Trump's boomer base, by contrast, see him as a saviour – the only elected official to follow through on promises made and call out the woke ideology that they believe has hijacked America. My father, born in 1947, tells me repeatedly that Mr Trump is the greatest thing ever to happen to US politics in his lifetime. They are a generation totally cool with America bombing Iran (where crowds change 'Death to America'), they don't really care about the Epstein files or their fallout and they generally believe Israel is an ally that must be supported and protected at all costs. To be clear, a huge number Americans never learn anything about the Middle East outside of church. The region's history – especially its recent history – isn't taught in public schools, where the history curriculum rarely goes beyond the Second World War; nor do they learn about US involvement in the region today or America's role in shaping it. History textbooks are curated at the local level, not mandated by the federal government, and local school boards generally reflect the character of their communities, many of which are Christian and conservative. It's only with access to smart phones and the internet that more, mostly younger, Americans have heard about the plight of Palestinian Christians, for example – another point of contention for Mr Trump's base. All of this is to say, America has a President who sets the news cycle. And while Monday's recognition of 'real starvation' in Gaza is belated, any effort to save the thousands of malnourished babies in Gaza would be seen by both a large share of his base and the rest of the world as reasserting America's role as an effective arbiter in the region. Mr Trump has leverage with Israel that no other president has had precisely because he was willing to take action on Iran. Now is the time to use it. Apply pressure to end a disastrous war that has been allowed to go on for far too long with way too much suffering. It might even bump Jeffrey Epstein off the top of the headlines in America for a day or two.
