Personal Injury and Corporate Responsibility for Customer Safety: Lessons From Garcia v. Starbucks

Description

Both plaintiffs and defendants can learn from analyzing the amount and speed of the Garcia verdict, without overlooking the amount of the plaintiff's demand ($125 million) and the defendant's last settlement offer ($30 million). The facts of the case were simple. In 2020, according to the jury, a barista working the drive-thru window at Starbucks negligently failed to properly secure a hot drink in a drink carrier. The drink spilled into Mr. Garcia's lap causing third-degree burns and life-altering injury. Although the drink spilled only 1.4 seconds after it was handed to Mr. Garcia, Starbucks took the position that it was not responsible for anything that happened after the drink was transferred to the plaintiff. It also disputed the extent and amount of damages.

Importantly, the hand-off was captured on video, so the jury could see what happened. This highlights the importance of dealing adeptly with potentially damaging video. During trial, and well into the damages phase, settlement talks continued. Eventually Starbucks offered $30 million to settle, which suggests that it realized the potential for a verdict exceeding that amount. Although Mr. Garcia was willing to accept, Starbucks would not agree to his non-monetary terms which included an apology and a company-wide memo about double-checking the security of cups in drink carriers. Parties need a strategy for setting a value on these types of conditions so they can logically evaluate settlement.

On one hand, the amount of the verdict could seem shocking as it was almost double the amount of the last settlement offer; on the other hand, it was only about 40% of what the plaintiff was requesting, in most other contexts a "win" for the defense.

Listen as our experienced panel analyzes this notable case and offers insights for both plaintiff and defense counsel about why the jury might have decided as it did, how the parties can evaluate unique settlement demands, why the verdict strikes some as excessive, and other observations that will assist counsel in their next trial.