Beverly Law — Accident AttorneysBEVERLY LAW BURN INJURY ATTORNEYS

Starbucks Burn Injury Lawsuits: Claims, the $50 Million Verdict, and How to Sue (Updated November 2026)

Michael Shemtoub, trial attorney, Beverly Law
Michael Shemtoub, Beverly Law
Trial attorney · English y Español · (310) 552-6959
Yes, you can sue Starbucks for a burn when the evidence shows the store caused it, for example by handing over a drink with the lid not pressed on or a cup not seated in the carrier, or when a defective cup or lid failed and its maker can be sued. Most of these cases turn on whether the lid or carrier gave way in normal handling before you had a fair chance to hold the drink, and the lid itself and the store video are what prove it.

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.

What to do after a Starbucks burn

  1. Cool the burn. For a minor burn with unbroken skin, MedlinePlus says to run cool water, not ice water, over it for at least 5 to 30 minutes, and not to pull off clothing stuck to the skin. Call 911 if the burn is about the size of your palm or larger (MedlinePlus).
  2. Go to a burn center for a deep burn. The American Burn Association recommends burn center consultation for any full-thickness burn, partial-thickness burns of 10 percent or more of the body, and deep burns of the face, hands, genitals or feet (ABA referral guidelines).
  3. Keep the cup, lid, sleeve and carrier, bagged and unwashed.
  4. Save the app order or receipt with the store and time, and write down the names of witnesses and the employee at the window or pickup counter.
  5. Photograph the burn every day for two weeks.
  6. Ask for the store video in writing within days. In Felder v. MGM National Harbor (D. Md. 2024), a routine 14-day overwrite was not spoliation because notice came too late. At a licensed store, send the request to the licensee and to Starbucks. Use our evidence preservation letter and the after-a-burn checklist.

Starbucks by the numbers

Starbucks’ annual report for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2025 lists 10,047 company-operated and 6,813 licensed stores in the United States. Beverages were 73 percent of company-operated store sales. Franchising is used only in some international markets, so a U.S. store is run by Starbucks or by a licensee whose employees must follow Starbucks’ “detailed store operating procedures.” A burn at a licensed store may involve both.

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.

No fees or costs unless we win

How Starbucks burns happen

The drive-thru handoff. Most of the cases below involve a drive-thru order. In Garcia, the driver’s lawyer said one of three venti teas was not fully pushed into the carrier. Other chains are covered on drive-thru burns.

Lids. Some suits allege the lid was not secured (Sanchez Avendano, Walker); a 2025 North Carolina suit attacks the lid design. See Starbucks drive-thru lid burns.

Tea and hot water. Garcia’s “medicine ball” teas, Piluyev’s Honey Citrus Mint Tea and the cup of hot water in Cha all led to burn unit care or skin grafts. See Starbucks tea and hot water burns.

Children. In 2011 a 13-month-old in Stuart, Florida was burned over 18 percent of her body when a large coffee and a large tea spilled as an adult put her in a high chair attached to the table; NBC Miami reported that police found it was an accident. See child burns at Starbucks.

What Starbucks has said about hot drinks

Starbucks has not published a serving temperature in any source we reviewed. In 2015 its large coffee cup carried the printed warning “Careful the beverage you’re about to enjoy is extremely hot,” according to the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Erchul.

The company has said its drinks are “brewed to industry standard and provided with secure lids” (Cha, 2019) and that it has “always been committed to the highest safety standards in our stores, including the handling of hot drinks” (Garcia, 2025).

Evans’s lawyers estimated her coffee at 190°F, and UPI described Mogavero’s drink as a “190-degree beverage.” The American Burn Association says hot beverages are usually served at 160 to 180°F and that at 140°F a serious burn takes five seconds or less. Burn times by temperature are on how hot is Starbucks coffee.

Reported Starbucks burn cases, 2007 to 2026

ReportedCase and placeAlleged or foundOutcome reported
Dec. 2007Massachusetts coupleCoffee spilled on their 7-month-oldSettled, $70,000 in trust for the child
Sept. 2012Sturgess, King County, Wash.Green tea lid came off (2009)Not reported
May 2015Kohr, Raleigh, N.C.Lid popped off, cup collapsedJury found Starbucks not liable
June 2016Mize, HoustonEmployee dropped coffeeNot reported
May 2017Mogavero, Jacksonville, Fla.Drive-thru lid came off (2014)$100,000 verdict; Starbucks 80% at fault
Sept. 2017Salas-Solano, DenverTea with no sleeve, lid not secured (2015)Not reported
Sept. 2018Erchul, Brunswick, Ga.Leak between lid and cup (2015)Verdict for Starbucks, affirmed
Nov. 2019Cha, Portland, Ore.Hot water, missing or loose lid (2017)Not reported
Sept. 2020Piluyev, Roseville, Calif.Tea lid came off at the window (2018)Not reported
Sept. 2021Simms, Harris County, Tex.Lid came off handing back a wrong orderNot reported
Aug. 2024Evans, Lynwood, Calif.Coffee mishandled, faulty lid (2022)Pending when reported
Mar. 2025Garcia, Los AngelesVenti tea not secured in carrier (2020)$50 million verdict; settled June 2025 (terms not public), dismissed July 2025
Apr. 2025Hermes, Norwalk, Calif.Cup not secured (2023)Settled, terms not disclosed
Apr. 2025Sanchez Avendano, North HollywoodUnsecured lid (2023)Not reported
Aug. 2025Lid-design suit, North CarolinaAmericano lid “popped off without warning”Removed to federal court
July 2026Walker, Wildomar, Calif.Lid popped off (June 2026)Pending when reported

“Not reported” means our sources do not say how the case ended. A complaint is one side’s account until a jury or judge decides it.

The California cases

Garcia v. Starbucks Corp., Los Angeles Superior Court No. 20STCV10214. On February 8, 2020, a tea spilled into delivery driver Michael Garcia’s lap at the Exposition Park drive-thru, causing third-degree burns, nerve damage and permanent genital injury; he had skin grafts. In March 2025 the jury found Starbucks 100 percent liable and awarded $50 million; punitive damages were not sought. On June 4, 2025, Judge Frederick Shaller denied Starbucks’ motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Starbucks said it would appeal, but the case settled in June 2025 and was dismissed in July 2025; the terms were not made public (LASC case summary). See Garcia v. Starbucks.

Other California suits. Tommy Piluyev spent 11 days in the UC Davis burn unit after a 2018 Roseville spill; Starbucks told TODAY its investigation found the handoff was successful. Leota Walker’s Riverside County suit claims 25 days in the hospital and multiple graft surgeries, the Daily Journal reported.

The “80 complaints a month” figure

Mogavero’s lawyer told the Florida Times-Union that Starbucks acknowledged about 80 complaints a month about leaks and lids popping off. The Erchul opinion says a Starbucks deposition in another case put it at “two complaints per million beverages sold,” and the court noted these were general cup and lid complaints.

Liability and deadlines

A store owes ordinary care when it hands over a hot drink (Cal. Civ. Code § 1714). When the lid or cup fails, its maker can face a product claim: strict liability in California (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 82, and Washington’s RCW 7.72. California (Li v. Yellow Cab) and Washington (RCW 4.22.005) reduce an award by the injured person’s share of fault; Texas bars recovery above 50 percent (CPRC § 33.001).

StateDeadlineStatuteNotes
California2 yearsCCP § 335.16-month claim against a public entity (Gov. Code § 911.2); minors, CCP § 352
Texas2 yearsCPRC § 16.003Minors, CPRC § 16.001
Washington3 yearsRCW 4.16.080Minors, RCW 4.16.190

Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou.

Starbucks burn injuries by city

Los Angeles · Orange County · Riverside · San Bernardino · Fresno · Bakersfield · Houston · Dallas · San Antonio · Seattle · Tacoma · Spokane

Burn injury lawyer · Scald burns · Peet’s · Dunkin’ · McDonald’s hot coffee case

Talk to a burn injury lawyer

Beverly Law handles coffee and tea burn cases in California and Washington. Consultations are free. You owe no fees or costs unless we win. Call (310) 552-6959.

Common questions

Can I sue Starbucks for a burn?

Yes, when the store’s handling of the drink or a defective cup or lid caused it. Juries have gone both ways: the Garcia jury put all of the fault on Starbucks, and the Kohr and Erchul juries found for Starbucks.

How much is a Starbucks burn lawsuit worth?

It depends on the injury and the treatment it needed. Reported outcomes involving Starbucks range from verdicts for Starbucks (Kohr, Erchul) to a $70,000 settlement for an infant (2007), a $100,000 verdict with Starbucks 80 percent at fault (Mogavero, 2017) and the $50 million Garcia verdict (2025), which involved third-degree genital burns, grafts and permanent nerve damage; Garcia then settled in June 2025 on terms that were not made public. Hermes settled on undisclosed terms. None of these sets the value of another case.

What if I was holding the cup when it spilled?

Garcia’s suit says the tea fell within 1.4 seconds of his taking the tray. Starbucks argued he controlled the drinks, but the jury put 100 percent of the fault on Starbucks.

How long do I have to sue Starbucks?

Two years in California (CCP § 335.1) and Texas (CPRC § 16.003), three years in Washington (RCW 4.16.080). Store video can be recorded over long before that, so the preservation letter goes out first.

Ask a question

Not ready to call? Write your question and someone on our team will answer. No cost, no commitment.

BEVERLY LAW · BURN INJURY ATTORNEYS

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.

✓Free consultation✓No fees or costs unless we win✓English y Español✓Available 24/7

Related pages

Burn Injury Lawyer

Sources

  1. Starbucks Corporation, Form 10-K for fiscal year ended Sept. 28, 2025 (U.S. store counts, franchising limited to some in (sec.gov)
  2. Erchul v. Starbucks Corp., No. 17-14068 (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2018) (unpublished), cup warning text, complaint-rate depos (media.ca11.uscourts.gov)
  3. AP via Claims Journal, Garcia verdict (March 17, 2025) (amp.claimsjournal.com)
  4. CBS Los Angeles, Garcia: Exposition Park drive-thru, three venti teas, burns and grafts (March 15, 2025) (cbsnews.com)
  5. CNN via ABC7 Los Angeles, Garcia: drink not fully pushed into the container; Starbucks statement on handling hot drinks (abc7.com)
  6. Courtroom View Network, Garcia v. Starbucks Corp., LASC No. 20STCV10214, Judge Frederick Shaller; Starbucks argued Garci (blog.cvn.com)
  7. Courthouse News, post-trial ruling: motions for new trial and JNOV denied, 100% liability, no punitive damages sought (J (courthousenews.com)
  8. ABA Journal, Mogavero v. Starbucks (May 22, 2017) (abajournal.com)
  9. UPI, Mogavero, "190-degree beverage" (May 19, 2017) (upi.com)
  10. KPRC (Click2Houston), Piluyev, 11 days in UC Davis burn unit (Sept. 21, 2020) (click2houston.com)
  11. TODAY (NBC), Piluyev: Honey Citrus Mint Teas, Pactiv, Starbucks' 2018 investigation of the handoff (Sept. 18, 2020) (today.com)
  12. AP via KOMO, Cha v. Starbucks (Nov. 1, 2019) (komonews.com)
  13. Los Angeles Times via AOL, Evans v. Starbucks (lawyers' 190-degree estimate) (aol.com)
  14. Daily Journal, Evans (Aug. 22, 2024) (dailyjournal.com)
  15. ABC7 Los Angeles, Walker (July 31, 2026) (abc7.com)
  16. Daily Journal, Walker, Riverside County Superior Court (July 31, 2026) (dailyjournal.com)
  17. City News Service via 10News San Diego, Hermes (April 2025) (10news.com)
  18. City News Service via KFI AM 640, Hermes settlement (Jan. 14, 2026) (kfiam640.iheart.com)
  19. City News Service via Inquirer USA, Sanchez Avendano (April 2, 2025) (usa.inquirer.net)
  20. Law360, North Carolina lid-design suit (Aug. 25, 2025) (law360.com)
  21. ABC13 Houston, Mize (June 22, 2016) (abc13.com)
  22. FOX 26 Houston, Simms (Sept. 1, 2021) (fox26houston.com)
  23. MyNorthwest, Sturgess, King County (Sept. 4, 2012) (mynorthwest.com)
  24. WTVD ABC11, Kohr verdict, Raleigh (May 11, 2015) (abc11.com)
  25. Fast Casual (reprinting the Gloucester Daily Times), Massachusetts infant settlement, $70,000 (Dec. 25, 2007) (fastcasual.com)
  26. FOX6 Milwaukee (Tribune Media Wire, citing KDVR), Salas-Solano, Denver (Sept. 12, 2017) (fox6now.com)
  27. CBS Miami, Stuart, Florida child burned over 18% of body (Sept. 23, 2011) (cbsnews.com)
  28. NBC Miami, Stuart, police determined it was an accident (Sept. 23, 2011) (nbcmiami.com)
  29. American Burn Association, Scald Injury Prevention Educator's Guide (hot beverages usually served at 160 to 180°F; five (childburn.org)
  30. MedlinePlus (U.S. National Library of Medicine), Burns, first aid (medlineplus.gov)
  31. MedlinePlus en español, Quemaduras (medlineplus.gov)
  32. American Burn Association, burn center referral criteria (ameriburn.org)
  33. Felder v. MGM National Harbor (D. Md. Aug. 7, 2024), 14-day video overwrite discussion (EDRM) (edrm.net)
  34. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
  35. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 352 (minors) (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
  36. Cal. Gov. Code § 911.2 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
  37. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
  38. Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975) (pure comparative fault) (scocal.stanford.edu)
  39. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 59 Cal.2d 57 (1963) (strict product liability) (scocal.stanford.edu)
  40. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.001 (minors) (statutes.capitol.texas.gov)
  41. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003 (statutes.capitol.texas.gov)
  42. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001 (statutes.capitol.texas.gov)
  43. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 82 (products liability) (statutes.capitol.texas.gov)
  44. RCW 4.16.080 (app.leg.wa.gov)
  45. RCW 4.16.190 (minors) (app.leg.wa.gov)
  46. RCW 4.22.005 (app.leg.wa.gov)
  47. RCW 7.72 (Washington Product Liability Act) (app.leg.wa.gov)
  48. 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.

×

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.

No fees or costs unless we win
© 2026 Beverly Law. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Free consultation
No fees or costs unless we win
Call Now · 24/7
4.8 out of 5 · 604 Google reviews
Skip to content