The recent civil case against Starbucks has garnered significant attention, drawing comparisons to the infamous McDonald’s hot coffee case. In this blog post, we will explore the details of the Starbucks case, contrast it with the McDonald’s case, and examine Canadian case law where damages are notably lower.
Garcia v. Starbucks
A California jury recently found Starbucks liable for severe burns suffered by Michael Garcia, a delivery driver. Garcia was picking up a drive-through order when one of the hot drinks in the takeout container spilled, causing burns to his thighs and genitals. The jury found Starbucks entirely responsible for Garcia’s injuries, assigning him no liability and delivered a verdict of $50,000,000 in damages.[1]
Comparison to the Infamous McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case
The Starbucks case has drawn comparisons to the McDonald’s hot coffee case, which was highly publicized in the 1990s. In the McDonald’s case, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-degree burns after spilling hot coffee in her lap. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days and required skin grafts. The jury found McDonald’s 80% responsible for the incident and awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000 and the parties later settled for an undisclosed amount before a planned appeal. Large corporations and insurance companies used the McDonald’s hot coffee case to argue for tort reforms, suggesting that the case was frivolous.
The documentary “Hot Coffee,” released in 2011, analyzes the impact of tort reform on the United States judicial system. It discusses the Liebeck case in depth, highlighting how it became a flashpoint in the debate over tort reform. The documentary reveals the myths and misconceptions surrounding the case, including the portrayal of Liebeck as a greedy claimant seeking a payout. For example, at the time McDonald’s was serving its coffee at a high temperature of 180-190°F. Trial documents showed that from 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald’s coffee to varying degrees of severity. McDonald’s knew for many years that their coffee was causing serious injuries and did nothing to reduce the risk.
Canadian Perspective
In contrast to the large damage awards in the United States, Canadian case law imposes a cap on pain and suffering general damages for personal injury. In 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada established a cap of $100,000 on damages for pain and suffering, which amounts to about $460,000 today.
The recent civil case against Starbucks and the McDonald’s hot coffee case both underscore the importance of corporate accountability and fair compensation for victims of negligence. While I am not advocating for similar 8 figure damage verdicts in Canada, in my view it is time to abolish the cap on pain and suffering damages. Nothing is more important than a person’s health.
Kris Bonn
Bonn Law
[1] https://globalnews.ca/news/11084951/starbucks-scalding-tea-spilled-lawsuit-50-million/