Skip to Content
California Trial Attorneys
Top

Behind the Headlines: The Truth About California’s So-Called ‘Nuclear’ Verdicts

Starbucks Coffee Shop Branding Logo With No People stock photo
|

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.

If you or someone you love has been injured due to someone else’s negligence, whether by a business or an individual, we are ready to help. Contact us today for a consultation to discuss your rights under California law.

Legal Disclaimer

The information on this website is considered advertising under applicable California law and may be considered advertising under your state's laws and ethical rules.

This website and its contents are offered for informational, and promotional purposes only and is not legal advice. Information on this website may be incomplete or out of date. No representations, testimonials, or endorsements on this website constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter.

No Guarantee of Results

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. The outcome of each legal case depends upon many factors, including the facts of the case, and no attorney can guarantee a positive result in any particular case.

The Law Offices of Ali Taheripour make no guarantees, warranties, or predictions about the outcome of your legal case.

We also make no representations that the quality of legal work to be performed is greater than the quality of legal work performed by other lawyers. Our prior results, including successful judgments and settlements, do not guarantee a similar outcome.

No Attorney-Client Relationship

No attorney-client relationship is created between you and The Law Offices of Ali Taheripour by viewing this website, by completing our online form, or by contacting our attorneys. Only after The Law Offices of Ali Taheripour confirms in writing that it has accepted you as a client is an attorney-client relationship formed.