A man in the US who was seriously injured after a hot drink spilled on his lap while receiving his order at a Starbucks drive-through received a $50 million payout. The incident caused "disfigured" genitals, and the California man had to go through multiple skin grafts. The incident occurred on 8 February 2020.

Advertisment

On Friday (March 14), the survivor -  Michael Garcia - received $50 million as compensation following a lawsuit. 

Also read: Starbucks introduces new policy, to ask customers 'to buy something' or 'get out'

A Los Angeles county jury found that Garcia had to go through numerous procedures on his genitals after a venti-sized tea drink spilled just after he collected it. 

Advertisment

His attorneys claimed that he suffered "permanent and life-changing disfigurement". Garcia's attorneys took to Instagram and wrote, "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.”

Also read: Starbucks shares slide as preliminary results reveal decline in sales

The attorneys further claimed Garcia sustained the burns from one of three venti-sized “Medicine Ball” hot teas that he was picking it up. 

Advertisment

Also read: New Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol Must Fix the Chain's Mobile App Problem

"Starbucks offered $30m to settle but wanted confidentiality. We said we would settle for $30m without confidentiality and only if Starbucks agreed to publicly apologize and promise to change policy to prevent this from happening again,” the post further said. 

Also read: Starbucks CEO Niccol pledges to "engage constructively" with workers' union

Garcia blamed an employee of Starbucks, alleging they did not hold the tray firmly enough to prevent it from spilling. 

“This jury verdict is a critical step in holding Starbucks accountable for flagrant disregard for customer safety and failure to accept responsibility,” said one of Garcia’s attorneys, Nick Rowley, in a statement.

Meanwhile, Starbucks issued a statement saying, “We disagree with the jury’s decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages awarded to be excessive." 

(With inputs from agencies)