By Michael Shemtoub, trial attorney, Beverly Law. Updated November 2026.
Burned because of someone else?
Leave your name and phone. We call back today, in English or Spanish. The consultation is free and confidential.
Free consultation · English y Español · No fees or costs unless we win
Beverly Law is not affiliated with Starbucks.
Starbucks’ home county
Starbucks is a Washington corporation, and its annual report for fiscal 2025 lists its headquarters at 2401 Utah Avenue South in Seattle. The same filing lists a 510,000-square-foot roasting and distribution plant in Kent and a 750,000-square-foot warehouse and distribution center in Auburn. It does not say how many Starbucks stores are in Seattle or in Washington. KIRO 7 reported in September 2025 that at least 28 Washington stores were closing in a company restructuring.
With the head office in town, a written evidence request can go to the store and to Utah Avenue on the same day.
The King County green tea suit
The one Washington case in our research was filed here. In 2012 MyNorthwest reported that Sturgess, a woman from San Antonio, had asked a King County court for damages over a venti green tea whose lid came off as she pulled out of a Starbucks drive-thru in 2009. The article does not say where that drive-thru was. Her skin blistered and she had second-degree burns, and the suit claims the barista failed to secure the lid. A Starbucks spokesman said he was confident the tea was made to industry standards. We found no report of how the case ended, and no other reported Starbucks burn suit filed in King County.
Tea comes up in other reported suits as well. A New York suit reported by Reuters in 2010 alleged Starbucks served tea “unreasonably hot, in containers which were not safe,” and the $50 million Garcia verdict in Los Angeles in 2025 also involved venti teas. Starbucks said it would appeal that verdict, but the case settled in June 2025 and was dismissed in July 2025; the terms were not made public (LASC case summary). Our Starbucks tea and hot water burns page covers these cases, and Garcia v. Starbucks explains the trial.
Free burn injury case review
Tell us what happened. We will tell you plainly whether there is a case and what to do next. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Court and burn care in Seattle
| Place | Details | |
|---|---|---|
| Court | King County Superior Court, 516 3rd Ave., Seattle | County Clerk in Room E609; some hearings at the Maleng Regional Justice Center, 401 4th Ave. N., Kent |
| Burn center | UW Medicine Regional Burn Center, Harborview Medical Center, 325 9th Ave. | ABA-verified; the only Washington burn center the ABA lists as verified |
| Trauma | Harborview Medical Center | Level I adult and Level I pediatric trauma center |
Harborview’s burn center opened in 1974 and has treated nearly 20,000 patients, about a third of them children, according to UW Surgery. A deep scald from a drink spilled anywhere in Seattle can be referred there, and then the burn notes, graft operations and therapy records come from one hospital system. More on Harborview is on our Seattle burn injury page.
What to save, cafe or drive-thru
| Save this | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Cup, lid, sleeve and any carrier, unwashed, in one bag | Sturgess’s suit says the barista did not secure the lid, and other reported suits also center on the lid |
| The Starbucks app order or paper receipt | Fixes the store, the drink and the minute, which a video request needs |
| Clothing you wore | Shows where the liquid landed |
| Names of anyone at your table or in the car | A witness can say who was holding the cup |
| A written request for the store’s video | Courthouse News reported that store video was key evidence in Garcia |
Send the video request within days. In Felder v. MGM National Harbor, a federal court in Maryland found in 2024 that routinely recording over footage after 14 days was not spoliation, because notice arrived after the video was gone. If the store has since closed, address the request to Starbucks’ headquarters as well.
Washington law for a Seattle Starbucks burn
| Rule | Law | In plain terms |
|---|---|---|
| Time to sue | RCW 4.16.080(2) | Three years from the burn |
| Shared blame | RCW 4.22.005 | Your fault lowers the award in proportion; it never bars it |
| Store on city, county or port district property | RCW 4.96.020 | A claim against the local government entity is presented first; suit waits 60 calendar days |
| Store on a state university campus | RCW 4.92.100, 4.92.110 | A claim against the state goes to risk management first, with the same 60-day wait |
| Child burned | RCW 4.16.190 | Years under 18 do not count |
| Punitive damages | Dailey v. North Coast Life (1996) | Generally not available |
These steps apply only to the claim against the public body; the claim against the company running the counter follows the ordinary three-year rule. Our main Starbucks burn injury page covers proof.
Seattle Starbucks burn questions
Has anyone sued Starbucks in Seattle over a burn?
The case we found is Sturgess, filed in King County and reported in 2012, over a 2009 drive-thru green tea whose lid came off. No outcome was reported.
Where would my Seattle case be filed?
In King County Superior Court, 516 3rd Ave. Some hearings are held at the Maleng Regional Justice Center in Kent.
Where are serious burns from a Seattle spill treated?
At the UW Medicine Regional Burn Center at Harborview, the only Washington burn center the American Burn Association lists as verified.
Can I get punitive damages in Washington?
Generally no. The case is about full compensation for the injury, including future scar care and lost work.
Can Beverly Law take a Seattle case from Los Angeles?
Yes. Michael Shemtoub is licensed in Washington as well as California and meets Seattle clients by phone or video.
Call about a Seattle Starbucks burn
If a Starbucks drink burned you or your child anywhere in Seattle or King County, call Beverly Law at (310) 552-6959 for a free, confidential review in English or Spanish. Start with our burn injury lawyer page, or see the Tacoma Starbucks page for Pierce County. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Ask a question
Not ready to call? Write your question and someone on our team will answer. No cost, no commitment.
Burn injury lawyer — Beverly Law
If you or your child was burned because of someone else in California, Texas and Washington, talk to a burn injury attorney. Free, confidential, English or Spanish. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Related pages
Sources
- Starbucks Corporation, Form 10-K for fiscal year ended Sept. 28, 2025 (incorporated in Washington; headquarters 2401 Uta (sec.gov)
- MyNorthwest, Sturgess suit in King County (2009 drive-thru venti green tea; lid came off; suit claims barista failed to (mynorthwest.com)
- KIRO 7, at least 28 Starbucks stores in Washington closing, Sept. 26, 2025 (kiro7.com)
- CBS Los Angeles, Garcia (venti "medicine ball" teas), March 15, 2025 (cbsnews.com)
- AP via Claims Journal, Garcia $50 million verdict; Starbucks planned to appeal, March 17, 2025 (amp.claimsjournal.com)
- Courthouse News, Garcia post-trial ruling; store video key evidence, June 4, 2025 (courthousenews.com)
- Reuters via Insurance Journal, Inanli v. Starbucks (tea "unreasonably hot, in containers which were not safe"), May 4, 2 (insurancejournal.com)
- Felder v. MGM National Harbor (D. Md. Aug. 7, 2024), 14-day overwrite (EDRM) (edrm.net)
- Washington Courts directory, King County Superior Court (516 3rd Ave.; Clerk Room E609; Maleng Regional Justice Center, (courts.wa.gov)
- UW Medicine Regional Burn Center at Harborview (325 9th Ave.; ABA- and ACS-verified) (nwrbms.uw.edu)
- UW Surgery, Harborview burn center (opened 1974; nearly 20,000 patients, about one-third children; patients from Washing (uwsurgery.org)
- American Burn Association, Find a Burn Center (ameriburn.org)
- Washington DOH trauma designation list (Harborview Level I adult and Level I pediatric) (doh.wa.gov)
- RCW 4.16.080 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 4.16.190 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 4.22.005 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 4.96.020 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 4.92.100 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 4.92.110 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- Dailey v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 129 Wn.2d 572 (1996) (law.justia.com)
- Los Angeles Superior Court, case summary for Garcia v. Starbucks, No. 20STCV10214 (post-trial motions denied June 4, 202 (cap.lacourt.ca.gov)
Important: This page is general information, not legal or medical advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different; talk to a lawyer about yours. Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou. Last reviewed: November 6, 2026.