Read the article. The barista was handing him the drinks, one of them wasn’t secure, spilled all over his lap. Suffered third degree burns to his penis, groin, and thighs. Needed multiple skin grafts. Life altering impairment.
The judgement isn’t about rewarding the plaintiff, but punishing the company. This wasn’t just hot liquid, but scalding hot liquid that caused hospitalization.
Similar to the McDonald’s case, Starbucks has had burn incidents in the past, and gotten fines but they kept serving scalding hot liquid. These big judgements are the only way to change their behavior.
Punitive damages are about punishing a company so they actually feel some sort of pressure to change whatever behavior caused the incident. It’s not about the specific single incident.
The fact this is similar to the McDonald’s hot coffee incident from a couple decades ago means that Starbucks already had a clear indication similar operations could lead to this, and did not have proper solutions in place to prevent a known possibility from happening. Looks like pretty clear negligence, to maximize profits, which means massive punitive damage to offset those profits.
50 million seems excessive
Read the article. The barista was handing him the drinks, one of them wasn’t secure, spilled all over his lap. Suffered third degree burns to his penis, groin, and thighs. Needed multiple skin grafts. Life altering impairment.
Similar to (in all seriousness) Stella Liebeck
The judgement isn’t about rewarding the plaintiff, but punishing the company. This wasn’t just hot liquid, but scalding hot liquid that caused hospitalization.
Similar to the McDonald’s case, Starbucks has had burn incidents in the past, and gotten fines but they kept serving scalding hot liquid. These big judgements are the only way to change their behavior.
Punitive damages are about punishing a company so they actually feel some sort of pressure to change whatever behavior caused the incident. It’s not about the specific single incident.
The fact this is similar to the McDonald’s hot coffee incident from a couple decades ago means that Starbucks already had a clear indication similar operations could lead to this, and did not have proper solutions in place to prevent a known possibility from happening. Looks like pretty clear negligence, to maximize profits, which means massive punitive damage to offset those profits.