July 31, 2026, 2:54 p.m. PT
A woman is suing Starbucks after a spilled cup of coffee at a Southern California drive-thru left her with severe burns that required 24 days of hospitalization, her attorney says.
Leota Walker filed a lawsuit against Starbucks in Riverside County Superior Court on July 22 that argues she suffered severe burns when a cup of hot coffee collapsed and spilled onto her lap at a Wildomar drive-thru. The suit argues that the cup and lid were defective.
Reached by phone, a Starbucks spokesperson said the coffee chain is not commenting on the lawsuit.
“Walker’s priority in pursuing this case against Starbucks is so that it hopefully changes its corporate safety policies and procedures so that this type of situation doesn’t happen to another person in the community,” her attorney Daniel DeSantis of Morgan & Morgan said in a July 31 phone interview.
What attorney says happened at SoCal Starbucks drive-thru
DeSantis said Leota Walker “was just like any other Starbucks customer” at the Wildomar drive-thru on June 21 when a worker “handed her a hot beverage.”
As she went to place the cup in her car cup holder, however, “the cup buckled,” DeSantis said.
“The integrity of the cup was compromised, and the lid came off because of the scalding hot temperatures of the beverage,” according to DeSantis.
The cup and its contents spilled on Walker, he said.
“Now, this was not just a spill where you grab some napkins and clean up the mess,” DeSantis said.
Walker was taken by ambulance after the spill left her with second-degree burns on multiple parts of her body, “including her lower extremities, private parts, lower abdomen, and stomach,” DeSantis said.
“She had to spend 24 days in the hospital undergoing surgery and skin grafts as a result of the temperature of the beverage that Starbucks served Mrs. Walker and the cup and lid that they gave her,” DeSantis said.
Walker is recovering but “still has a very long road to recovery,” DeSantis said.
“It’s my understanding that she has to go to the doctors twice a week so that they can look at her wounds and give her new bandages,” DeSantis said.
Is there law guiding what temperature is too hot to serve a beverage in California?
The 1994 McDonald’s hot coffee case, Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, became a landmark example of how restaurants can face liability when extremely hot coffee, combined with factors such as inadequate warnings or unsafe packaging, causes severe burn injuries. In that case, evidence showed that McDonald’s served coffee at about 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
The case did not establish a legal maximum temperature for serving hot beverages, however. Currently, there is no federal law or California state law that sets a temperature cap for hot beverages sold by restaurants.
Instead, courts generally evaluate cases under negligence and products-liability principles, considering factors such as the beverage temperature, adequacy of warnings, severity of the risk, container design, and whether the restaurant took reasonable steps to protect customers.
While the Specialty Coffee Association has recommended brewing coffee between 195 and 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal flavor, hot beverages are often served at lower temperatures. Burn-safety research has found that liquids served above 160 degrees Fahrenheit can cause severe scald injuries after brief skin contact.
According to the complaint, Starbucks’ website recommends brewing coffee between 195 and 205 degrees Fahrenheit. The lawsuit says reports show the company serves hot beverages at approximately 170 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, although Starbucks does not publicly disclose a standard serving temperature.
‘Completely preventable incident,’ attorney says
DeSantis called Walker’s situation “a completely preventable incident.”
“Starbucks has been on record, both just from general online searches and previous lawsuits in courts of law across this country, that the beverages they serve to their customers are entirely too hot,” DeSantis said.
The lawsuit points to a separate 2025 verdict, where a jury awarded $50 million to a customer in a Starbucks burn injury case, as grounds that the company was aware of similar risks.
While it seems common that companies are sued over hot beverage spills, DeSantis said the “significant nature” of Walker’s injuries makes her case different.
“This was not just an accident. This was a preventable accident because of the history of what has occurred to Starbucks customers, and not only was it a preventable accident, but the preventable accident due to the negligence of Starbucks caused Mrs. Walker catastrophic harms,” DeSantis said.
DeSantis said Starbucks has also known of reported issues with its cups and lids. The lawsuit cites a Business Insider article titled, “Starbucks cup lids are falling off — it’s not your imagination. Workers say it’s a problem,” and references online complaints about lids coming loose or falling off.
“(Hot beverages) should not be causing second-degree burns requiring surgery and skin grafts, and (Starbucks’) cups and lids are known to fail,” DeSantis said. “And they have clearly not taken reasonable action to prevent this exact type of situation from occurring.”
Legal claims brought against Starbucks
The lawsuit brings multiple claims against Starbucks, including negligence. Walker argues that the company failed to safely prepare and serve hot coffee and used defective cups and lids.
The lawsuit also says Starbucks is liable under the theory of strict products liability, arguing that the cup and lid were unsafe and unreasonably dangerous.
Walker also alleges negligent hiring, supervision and retention. The lawsuit argues that the company failed to adequately train and supervise employees responsible for preparing and serving hot beverages.
In addition, Walker’s husband, Lamont Walker, is seeking loss-of-consortium damages, saying his wife’s injuries have negatively affected their marriage.
“In California and in this country, we hold spousal relationships holy,” DeSantis said. “If a spouse gets catastrophically hurt at no fault of their own due to another or another corporation’s negligence, well, that not only impacts the injured victim, but it also significantly impacts the spouse, and that’s what happened in this case with Mr. Walker.”
The couple is seeking compensation for past and future medical expenses, lost earnings and loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss-of-consortium damages. They are also seeking punitive damages.
