Nuclear Verdicts in California: Are They Justified or Unreasonable?
Understanding High-Dollar Jury Awards in California Personal Injury Cases
In March 2025, a California jury awarded $50 million to a delivery driver against the Starbucks corporation. Video footage showed that the Starbucks barista secured lids on two of the three drinks, but failed to properly close one of the drinks, which caused it to spill in the driver’s lap. The plaintiff was able to demonstrate to a jury that he suffered severe burns to his lower body and that he should be awarded damages for Starbucks’ negligence.
This high-stakes case sparked an immediate backlash, with critics labeling the outcome a “nuclear verdict” — a term often used by insurance companies and defense attorneys to characterize what they consider inflated or excessive jury awards.
But are these verdicts truly unreasonable? Or are they the result of a careful legal process rooted in facts and governed by California law?
How Damages Are Determined in California
Step One: Establishing Liability
In any personal injury case in California, the first step for a jury is to determine whether the defendant was negligent and whether that negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. This involves careful examination of the evidence, including witness testimony, expert reports, surveillance cameras, and documented injuries.
Step Two: Calculating Economic and Non-Economic Damages
If liability is established, the jury must then determine an amount that fairly compensates the plaintiff. This includes:
- Economic damages – medical expenses, lost income, future care
- Non-economic damages – pain, suffering, emotional distress
Jurors cannot guess or speculate; they must follow strict legal guidelines to come up with a reasonable and lawful award based on the evidence.
Step Three: Considering Punitive Damages
Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, may be awarded in cases involving especially egregious conduct or a willful and conscious disregard by the defendant. These are intended to punish and deter, not compensate.
Backlash Against Large Verdicts: The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case
Many critics of high jury awards cite the infamous McDonald’s hot coffee case from the 1990s. In that case, a 79-year-old woman suffered third-degree burns from a coffee served at temperatures well above safety recommendations. Contrary to media distortions, she was seated in a parked car, not driving, and her injuries were severe enough to require skin grafts and hospitalization.
Evidence revealed McDonald’s had received over 700 complaints about similar burns. The initial $2.7 million jury award included punitive damages, aiming to force the company to change its practices. Yet the media framed it as a frivolous lawsuit, sparking a national backlash that ultimately led to tort reform efforts across many states.
What About California?
Despite nationwide efforts to cap non-economic damages, California currently does not impose a hard cap on damages in most personal injury cases. That means juries can fully consider the true scope of harm suffered by victims and award damages accordingly — including high verdicts when justified by the evidence.
The Law Offices of Ali Taheripour: Fighting for Justice in California
At The Law Offices of Ali Taheripour, we understand the tactics used by insurance companies to minimize claims. We are committed to fighting for full and fair compensation for our clients. Our legal team has secured large verdicts, settlements, and awards, by presenting thorough evidence and compelling legal arguments — not speculation or exaggeration.