Since I started monitoring jury deliberations 25 years ago, I must confess that when the discussion centers on damage awards it is usually a fascinating one. Do jurors go around the room and take an average as a starting point? Do they seek consensus based on guidance from the lawyers? Do they arrive at a final amount based on how entrenched the jurors are in their individual amounts? Does the dynamic drive who jurors gravitate to? Each jury is unique, and oftentimes damage assessments consist of jurors inquiring and speculating about factors not in evidence. For examples (sorry about all these questions): Will the plaintiff lawyer receive one-third of the award? Did the plaintiff settle with another defendant not in the case? Would insurance or the State pay for some of the damages claimed by those seeking compensation?

One thing we know is that jurors do not award money damages for a living, and are not privy to prior jury awards in similar cases. Real objective guidance is limited. We do know jurors want to get it right, and like to feel that their award was reasonable, fair and meaningful. One thing that comes up frequently when a jury is discussing damages is the legendary case from 1994 when a woman spilled hot coffee on her lap and suffered third-degree burns and was awarded nearly $3 million. This award led to major efforts at tort reform and caps on damages, but it also served to inform the general public of a benchmark for non-economic damages. After all, if coffee that is too hot is worth $3 million, what should a scar on someone’s leg be worth? Interestingly, when this is brought up in a deliberation setting, it isn’t always in a way you might think. While many bring up the “McDonald’s coffee worth millions” lawsuit to argue for higher damages, others use it to ridicule frivolous lawsuits where damage awards are out of control.

With McDonald’s hot coffee spilled being synonymous with a million dollars in the litigation context, a recent case in California could supplant what has been the “go to” for an easily accessible notion of what something is worth in a lawsuit. In March of this year, a jury in California ordered Starbucks to pay $50 million in damages to a delivery driver who was severely burned after hot tea spilled in his lap, causing third-degree burns to his penis, groin and inner thigh. Starbucks will appeal, and the award will likely get vastly reduced. However, moving forward, when jurors deliberate and are asked to award money for amorphous categories that do not have concrete numbers like lost wages or medical bills, I am pretty confident someone will bring up how a very hot cup of spilled tea at Starbucks is worth $50 million.