Postmates drivers awarded $50 million judgement over burns cause by spilled Starbucks tea

Yahoo! News - Mar 17th, 2025

A Los Angeles County jury awarded $50 million to Michael Garcia, a Postmates delivery driver, who suffered severe third-degree burns to his groin, penis, and inner thighs after a Starbucks barista allegedly failed to properly secure a hot tea in a drink carrier. The incident occurred in February 2020 at a drive-thru in South Los Angeles, leading to life-altering injuries for Garcia. After five years of legal battles, including hospitalization and multiple skin grafts for Garcia, the jury found Starbucks liable, factoring in pre-judgment interest and attorney fees, with the total owed exceeding $60 million.

Starbucks, represented by Director of Corporate Communications Jaci Anderson, expressed their disagreement with the verdict, labeling the jury award as excessive and announcing plans to appeal the decision. The case highlights ongoing safety concerns regarding hot beverage handling in stores and reflects the potential for high-stakes litigation involving major corporations. The refusal to settle without confidentiality and a public apology from Starbucks underscores the plaintiff's commitment to public awareness and corporate accountability, emphasizing the broader implications for consumer safety standards.

Lawsuit Food Safety Starbucks Michael Garcia Postmates Burn Injuries Jury Award

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.0

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of a significant legal case involving Starbucks and a Postmates delivery driver. It accurately reports the jury's verdict and presents both parties' perspectives. While the article is timely and of public interest, it could benefit from additional independent sources to enhance credibility and balance. The structure and language are clear, making it accessible to a general audience. However, further transparency regarding the evidence and financial calculations would improve the article's reliability. Overall, it effectively informs readers about the case's key aspects while maintaining a neutral tone.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports the jury's $50 million award to Michael Garcia due to severe burns from spilled Starbucks tea. The details about the incident, such as the location, nature of injuries, and the duration of the legal battle, are consistent with known facts. However, some elements, like the exact conditions of the settlement offers and the presence of video evidence, require further confirmation. The article claims Starbucks owes over $60 million when including interest and fees, which aligns with the law firm's statements, but this figure should be verified with court records.

Balance

The article presents perspectives from both Garcia's legal team and Starbucks. Garcia's attorney provides a detailed account of the incident and the legal proceedings, emphasizing negligence and victim-blaming by Starbucks. In contrast, Starbucks' response highlights their disagreement with the verdict and their intent to appeal, suggesting the award was excessive. However, the article could benefit from more neutral language and additional perspectives, such as an independent legal expert's view on the case.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and clearly presents the sequence of events, from the incident to the jury's verdict. The language is straightforward, making it accessible to a general audience. However, some legal terms and processes could be explained more thoroughly to enhance understanding for readers unfamiliar with legal jargon. Overall, the article maintains a logical flow and effectively communicates the key points of the case.

Source quality

The article cites statements from Garcia's attorney and Starbucks' corporate communications director, both of whom are directly involved parties. While these sources are credible regarding their respective positions, the lack of independent sources or expert opinions limits the depth of analysis. The reliance on statements from the involved parties may introduce bias, as each aims to present their side favorably. Additional sources, such as court documents or third-party legal experts, could enhance the article's reliability.

Transparency

The article provides a clear account of the legal proceedings and the positions of both parties involved. However, it lacks transparency regarding the evidence, such as the alleged security footage of the incident. The article also doesn't disclose how the financial figures were calculated or verified. Greater transparency about the sources of information and any potential conflicts of interest would improve the article's credibility.