He had a concussion and possible brain damage kinda hard to fake that. As far as lost wages that would be a life time because he was self employed and can no longer do that.

He had a concussion and possible brain damage kinda hard to fake that.

Hence the reason for paying the medical expenses. Obviously he isn't too brain damaged if he can make a decision such as turning down a settlement offer. As someone else points out a little further down from this post:

ur in a place with continuous foot traffic - u should consider the floor potentially slippery.

Normally I would say he got too much for this lawsuit. But after reading how much of a jerk the manager was to him afterwards, I think he earned every penny. The guy smacks his head off of a register and all the manager can do is make a sarcastic remark like "Sorry for not DRY mopping" ?! If the manager had just been nice and made sure he was ok and got to a hospital, the guy probably would have left them alone, or only asked them for hospital fees, which is more than reasonable given the circumstances. Maybe starbucks will learn something about customer service.

football players have to be forced out of the game when they get concussions, so somehow I doubt that this guy couldn't work afterwards, and all this other crap? His wife gets money for loss of love? What BS if there is no love in their marriage it's not because this guy got injured. I bet anything he is one of those chiropracters affiliated with a law firm of ambulance chasers and when he got hurt at a large chain like starbucks he didn't see stars he saw $$$$$.

uh..doof ? The major part of that award WAS lost wages. As a Chiropractor, if he made 100's of 1000's a year, and his injuries were career ending, the award was to compensate him for all those years he would have made a living.

Yeah - blame the lawyers...fool.

Was it LAWYERS who awarded the millions ? NO! - it was a JURY of his and YOUR peers.

Stop arm chair quarterbacking when you werent at the trial.

Sorry Tim but simply being a jerk isn't an excuse to sue someone. If it was just about everybody would have pending lawsuits against them.

WE should welcome this "chiropractor" to the 1% with the customary ass kissing and super low taxes. Right, GOP?

Ok Jeff, lets assume for a minute that this guy made $200,000 a year, since he fell in 2008 that would only be $600,000 in lost wages. Lets assume his medical bills were $200,000. That is $800,000 right there. Nowhere near the behemoth $7.5 million. By the way, in 2011 the average wage for a chiropractor in the US was only $130,323 so my numbers were a bit generous.

What a bunch of B.S. 7.5 million for being clumsy or stupid or both. What is this country coming to? If I owned any business any where near him, I would ban him and his wife from entering.

I bet the critics here would do the very same thing if it were them ........ When someone is on your premises you're responsible for their safety same as if someone got hurt at your home, guess what that is why you have insurance .... People need to grow a brain ..

Ursamajor

Every self employed person should be required to have "loss of income" insurance...

It's just another business write-off anyway...

The "brain "damage he had was the realization that he had an opportunity to screw a company and NOT HIS WIFE. This is why "tort reform" is one of the most pressing actions the republicraps want to implement. When real harm is done nothing is paid, when frivolous crap is done as this was it makes all legitimate lawsuits look bad.

Maybe he should go see a chiropractor.

He could always go into politics and would fit in well with the other Tea-Publican presidential contenders.

Is my espresso going up to $10 to cover this?

This will be appealed. By the time the lawyers are through they will have the lion's share of any settlement money and the damaged chiropractor? Well, he'll pocket about what the settlement money would pay. Then again, Starbucks and most businesses are required to carry insurance for just this sort of thing so think the inurance company will be paying off. Then they will raise Starbuck's rates.

This is why "tort reform" is one of the most pressing actions the republicraps want to implement. When real harm is done nothing is paid, when frivolous crap is done as this was it makes all legitimate lawsuits look bad.

It's only frivolous when it applies to everyone else. Then when you slip and fall and suffer a serious, career ending injury you'll try to say "those other people had frivolous lawsuits, but mine is genuine". The problem with TORT reform is that EVERY lawsuit is treated as frivolous, and people who should actually get substantial awards (like say someone who has permanent brain injury requiring treatment the rest of their lives) gets tiny amounts that can't even cover the cost of treatment.

I'm sorry, you can't put a price on certain things and to just say "well his medical expenses were only $200,000 and he only lost $X since 2008". So how much do you give him for having to HAVE medical care? I am certain it's not a pleasant experience and what if being a chiropractor was his dream, what's the going price on lost dreams? Who knows what his career options might have been? What we do know is that they are over.

You give him nothing for having to have medical care. The payout should be his medical expenses plus lost wages. A person shouldn't be awarded money just for the sake of getting money.

I guess $8.5 million means that he can never work again in his life?

You give him nothing for having to have medical care. The payout should be his medical expenses plus lost wages. A person shouldn't be awarded money just for the sake of getting money.

So companies can continue to hire minimum wage jerks to increase their bottom line and continue to let these underpaid, under-trained, under-motivated, idiots continue to put the public at risk with their stupid mistakes because management doesn't care.

It's like the Ford Pinto. A one dollar part would have prevented the cars' gas tank from exploding in a rear end collision but the pencil necks and bean counters figured the cost of the expected number of lawsuits was less than the cost of adding this part to millions of their Pintos. Corporate America at it's profit mongering finest.

And as for all the other arm chair quarterbacks second guessing the jury. You weren't there,You don't know. Punitive damages are given in the case of negligence and it is to punish and hopefully make it more cost effective to do it right in the first place.

from 1.3 Tim... Normally I would say he got too much for this lawsuit. But after reading how much of a jerk the manager was to him afterwards, I think he earned every penny.

Seriously???

I will work my entire life and be lucky if my total earnings are $1.5 million. 50 years of work.

You think that because the manager was a stooge, this fool "earned" $7.5 million????

Good god, no wonder our nation is turning into a toilet.

I'm still of the opinion that suing for an ungodly sum of money isn't the right course of action. Even if you win the case it isn't going to make the company any better, a good example of that if Bank of America.

Just a teensy-weensy bit of food for thought. Don't we hear all the time about UNCERTAINTY? Oh yeah, that uncertainty that keeps business people from expanding.

Folks, this is just another example of why that is such bunk. Business people know that their number one concern is the customer. The chiropractor in this instance - a customer - is yet another of the true uncertainty business people face.

The government is a minor problem compared to customers. Please think about this the next time you hear the nonsense about government being the reason for uncertainty.

You are right Tooke, chiropractors more than anyone know the insurance game to a T. They prefer customers who have insurance that they can max out on and charge them according to who much they can get not how much they really do or how bad the patient is hurt. It is a pervading problem with today's society, how much I can get not how much do I do. It's called GREED and that is what this story is about. The one thing not mentioned though? It is the LAWYERS who will get most of the money, the LAWYERS. There is your greed source for the day....

Actually for the comments blaming republicans, or the GOP, and or now hes a 1% er,, most people living on the public dole, or other peoples tax dollars are Democrats, (look up the percentages) also most Republicans are for Tort reform, or limiting jury awards for frivolous lawsuits or in this case, frivolous judgements. If you notice in Obama-care, there is no Tort reform included. Plus the guy was in California, and thus most likely a Democrat,, so thus negates all the standard illogical liberal comments regarding the republicans and or his huge settlement into a political party issue.

If the guy made $150k a year and had 40 years of practice (plus sale at the end) left then he would've made this same amount over his lifetime. It's easy math. Don't kill people's lives and you won't have to pay them for it.

Zaccaglin alleged that he suffered complications stemming from the fall and was unable to return to work as a chiropractor.

He alleged, not "An independent doctor" him. There may be people who have their entire lives ruined by getting a single concussion, but I've never heard of them the judgement he got is what I would expect if he had broken his neck not this petty bs.

While the size of the settlement seems excessive, google Starbucks and scalding. I did after a family friend had a drink cup tip forward from a carrier onto her front - 3rd degree burn (bleeding) at point of touch to the skin, and second degree all down her front. Starbucks just smiles while it says "too bad so sad...have a free drink" - even tho' businesses carry "med pay" on their commercial insurance policies for medical help - regardless of fault. It helps to keep down size of claims. Starbucks' corporate policy appears to be lacking, putting them at greater risk for incurring large settlements - essentially by forcing people to go to a lawyer to get restitution.
It may be a "hot" drink, but if an accidental spill happens, people don't expect to be served something SO hot that will peel their skin off.

"Starbucks should be responsible for the public's safety"?? What about individuals being responsible for their own safety? The employee was mopping something up, likely "an individuals" coffee, why not sue the person that spilled the frackin' coffee? Oh, because they likely don't have $8,000,000.

$1,000,000 for his wife, that can go in Websters as the definition of frivolous, lawyer driven, only in America CRAP. Gods help us.

Cassandra, who knew?

People ask for their HOT DRINK to be EXTRA HOT so it will still be hot by the time they get to work etc. and are surprised that that the HOT DRINK is hot! Are you saying that if a person spills a hot drink on themselves they deserve "restitution"?

Open a business of your own and when someone says they slipped on your floor and expect you to make them a millionaire, come back to the vine.

If you burn yourself at home, do you deserve "restitution"? Please think about that for a minute.

Yea for him. Now all of the people who go to Starbucks will be paying for this. Are people still so naive this is not understood? The cost is passed on to the consumer. One can only hope it's just the Cali consumer who will have to pay since they're the fools making such a frivolous award. Ridiculous.

"Zaccaglin alleged that he suffered complications stemming from the fall and was unable to return to work as a chiropractor."

Nowhere did it say that he suffered a concussion or "possible brain damage"... only alleged "complications".

Hey workingpoor are you against the worker or for the worker. The poor worker is the one getting blamed. Blamed by a fat cat chiropractor. The poor worker mopped up a spill and didn't use a hair dryer. God only knows what kind of drugs this falling guy was on. Power to the people and stop blaming hard working people. You can find blame for everything that ails you in life, I am sure you do. Next time you are in a communist country take a nice long ferry ride.

This is why "tort reform" is one of the most pressing actions the republicraps want to implement. When real harm is done nothing is paid, when frivolous crap is done as this was it makes all legitimate lawsuits look bad.

Tort reform is nothing but BS corporate welfare to the insurance industry. I have yet to see one state that has passed Tort reform and had their insurance rates actually go down. The last thing we need to do is give corporations even more rights than the rest of us by making them immune from lawsuits.

First and foremost the man was injured. The man obviously has medical bills and obviously has lost wages. The fact is the man deserves to get paid for the negligence of this company. Now, I will say 7.5 million seems a bit much but I'm not sitting in there listening to the actual evidence of the injury, medical bills and other things this guy suffered. Even though it is just plain ridiculous to give this woman 1 million dollars.

I bet the critics here would do the very same thing if it were them ........

Rick - what you or I, or this person or that person would do is beside the point. The point is that 7.5 million dollars for a simple, slip & fall injury is excessive. This guy saw his opportunity and he took it. Many would.

But a society which awards such amounts for such trivial causes does have some serious problems with their civil court system.

...and seriously, is it really so hard to walk on a wet floor without falling and suffering permanent incapacitation. At what point did we cease to be responsible for our own locomotion?

The wife's award of 1 million dollars for "loss of consortium" was just the cherry on top.

I hope Starbucks appeals. This is ridiculous.

How much of that money is the attorney getting?? Thats a large part of the problem.

First the government takes half then the lawyers take half of that. So $8 million turns into 2 million. Which isn't a hell of a lot, just ask the millionaires in congress how hard it is to get by on only a couple million.

Unless the guy is paralyzed or worse, it is a ridiculous amount. And I don't get how a concussion ended his "career". It's not like he did real work, he barely has to do anything strenuous. A Starbucks' cashier job is more labor intensive then his.

There is no mention of brain damage in this article, just "complications". That could mean he has a bump on the back of his head and it hurts when he rubs it.

The loss of consortium is nothing but BS. Unless you have tangible proof, this needs to be outlawed as a reason to sue.

Lost wages and medical care is the most he should get. Unless he is paralyzed, if he choses not to work his easy job, then he is not entitled to a free ride for being a dimwit.

We need to stop all injury lawsuits that are not physically life altering.

My dad gave up living after losing his second leg due to negligence of two medical facilities. Because of his health condition at the time, we were told that it was not worth trying to sue. It really disgust me when some scum gets a big settlement for some stupid BS and my dad who could not walk on his own again could not sue when it was easy to prove negligence. My dad would still be alive today if the staff at the two facilities had done their jobs and listened to us when we told them what was happening; but they were the trained professionals and knew what they were doing.

I think people like this guy and his lawyer should be put in prison for a couple of years for bringing this kind of law suit. The only exception would be if the guy suffered a real physical injury, such as being paralyzed for the rest of his life.

Well, according to Whitepages.com, there are only two guys with this name listed. One in his 40s, the other in his 50's. I also called what probably is his office, and guess what? I got an Emergency Answering Service with a live Representative, so I guess he is not out of business because of the "complications". And you can book an appointment for his office if you want to.

No matter how you slice it, this guy is scum looking for free money.

This settlement has little to do with his loss of earnings (since obviously he is still earning a lot of money with his practice still in operation). Depending if he is 40s or 50s, if this "injury" had "complications" that ended his career, then at most he would have been able to work for a maximum of 20 more years before old age "complications" ended his career (let's face it, old age will have more physically debilitating effects than a slip/fall can in most cases), so at most he would have earned another $4 million, before taxes; and that would be if he is a top chiropractor.

Maybe this guy will show us all that he didn't sue for the money by donating every penny not used for his medical bills to a deserving charity. One like the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation.

Jwright (1.8)

You fail to take into consideration "future" wage loss. At your 130k figure, IF the guy was in his 30's, he has 30 years of future lost wages....you do the math.

He should have received something for this accident, but 7.5 million!!!!!!!! and COME ON!!!!

This jury must have had an ax to grind, maybe starbucks screwed up their Tall Non Fat Mocha, with a hint of coconut. (my fav) one too many times.

I agree with you, Connie. He should have received some kind of compensation, but the wife? No. Way too excessive.

This is the reason I dropped out of law school. Lawyers (and those who hire them to sue) are the worst kind of people.

I don't know... $7.5 million seems a worthwhile pricetag to get another quacky chiropractor off the streets.

If he were an acupuncturist, I'd have been okay with twice the amount.

The McDonald's case was a UCC products liability action not a tort action. The plaintiff argued the coffee was so hot it was a defective product. McDonald's agreed (Yes, read that again, McDonald's did not argue that the coffee was not a defective product under the UCC. I know, you'll say, "but it wasn't" but McDonald's admitted that it was.) McDonald's defense was that she was an old lady with thin skin so they shouldn't have to pay in this case (they had settled dozens of cases for coffee burns that year for more than $550,000 total not each).

Ms. Liebeck got more than 2 million but the appellate court said that was too much and ordered a new trial. She later settled for, I think, $340,000, almost $200,000 more than she would have settled had McDonald's offered more than the $800 they did.

This verdict will not make it through remittitur. The jury was sending a message to Starbucks (which is what punitive or exemplary damages are for). Starbucks will settle for probably 1/10 to 1/12 of this award, you'll never hear about it, and will forever believe this person actually received the 7.5M.

Did you even read the story?

tarbuck's gets sued and the wife of the claimant gets a million dollars to compensate her for the loss of her husband's love and comfort (when she probably ignores him when he is not injured). This isn't justice; it's predation by people who smell money and will do whatever it takes to get it.

Yet you cant sue for the very same thing, when someones woos your spouse and they run off with someone else.. How very interesting..

Yea? you are right on target. Some people just can't handle the truth

Sam,

Yes you can sue for loss of affection and consortium when your spouse has an affair. You can sue the person she is having an affair with. Maybe not in all states but certainly in N.C. My mom's neighbor was sued and had to pay money for being the "other woman."

Yeah? you are leaving out the fact that McDonalds hasn't changed the temperature of their coffee. The only ones that find it defective are lawyers, everyone else wants hot coffee. Obviously McDonalds didn't agree and it is an industry standard to brew at 200 freaking degrees. That @!$%# is hot so be careful so we can enjoy hot coffee way into the future

7.5+1M is way too much for only allegations. Really it's too much in any case. If there were other customers around who managed to not slip and hit the counter and this guy did after watching the employee mop, there's really no excuse. Pay the medical and lost wages while in medical if they didn't put up a wet floor sign, otherwise there's no reason to pay anything.

Regarding the coffee temperature issue - I work at a convenience store. Multiple times I've had customers complain that the coffee kept at just below boiling wasn't hot enough. I don't know what people expect.

This is the exact case that started the frivolous lawsuit avalanche. This woman should have got nothing. "my hot coffee was too hot and no one told me that my Vagina was not a cup holder.

"That's OK dear, I can think of a million ways you can make it up to me"

How many times have you been in McDonalds or Hardees or Burger King and you see the "WET FLOOR" cone on the floor? They ALWAYS mop during hours the business is open and they wet mop. When I see that cone, I take extra precaution because those greasy dives just slop mop those floors and they are covered in grease making for very slippery floors. I always thought it was rather inane to have wet greasy floors while restaurants were open.

I somewhat appreciate the verdict for the chiropractor BUT the money for the wife???? Don't get that... at least her husband is ALIVE and she should be thankful for that! I am sure this article does not give us the "whole" story as they never do. They leave lots of room for speculation. Just like someone posted above, the clerk was a smart ass when they said, "sorry, I should have dry mopped." Nobody knows when that comment was made nor the context in which it was made. Chances are the cashier felt really badly about what happened... I certainly would have. But someone was quick to criticize Starbucks for their bad customer service.

"Loss of Consortium" generally means the spouse is no longer able to enjoy the frequency or quality of sex that they previously had. I'd sue for that, although I don't know how a value could be attached to it. It's entirely legitimate.

Hoodie - You do realize that they actually provided a definition in the story right? And it wasn't because he couldn't have sex.

"His wife was awarded $1 million for loss of consortium, or the loss of her husband’s love, companionship, comfort and care."

He probably didn't care because he was too focused on getting his payday and fantasizing about all the tail he would pull when he is a millionaire.

Is the guy permanently damaged?

Probably, but I don't think the fall at Starbucks' had anything to do with it.

It's ok, that manager has been fired.

This is the kind of case that inspires tort reform. So often a very badly hurt, disfigured, and disabled person gets very little for their accident and ends up near destitute and living on welfare to survive while someone like this is awarded SO much. This one sound fishy in large part because of the wife's demands. I have trouble with the amount and the nature of the injury that he claims "disabled" him. As to Starbucks, put out the cone & close that cashier's line when mopping is required. Customers complain if a restaurant is untidy and the floors aren't clean and it's hard to keep clean in a busy place like Starbucks. Mopping in a coffee and danish place usually is to dry up employee's or customer's liquid spills.

AND McDonalds wet mops their floors during business hours too... be careful on those slippery floors!

I highly doubt his medical bills came out to 7 million dollars. This isn't about compensation, it is about greed.

it was a JURY of his and YOUR peers.

Are these the same peers that let the movie stars go? I know nothing about this case but from this article, seems way out of line. These peers are saying to themselves jackpot, I hope I hit it one day. They look at a big company and think they wont miss the money no harm. But little do they know the insurance company pays the settlement and everyone's rate goes up and thing cost more. At least it isn't $100 million like in the 70's and 80's.

In all truthfulness, if it were me, I wouldn't sue at all. I would probably chalk it up to me being careless. But then, I'm an honest person with a sense of moral decency which is so rare in this country nowadays.

So true. I would be thinking "I hope nobody I know saw me bite it at Starbucks", not "I hope everyone saw that, so they can testify when I sue".

Russ:

Actually there is a dual responsibility in this situation. There are many court rulings wherein the court has ruled that "if a reasonable person should have known of the potential issue (fill in your choice-ice on sidewalk during sub-zero weather, a wet floor in an area where customers might spill liquids, etc.), then the injured party is AT LEAST equally responsible for the mishap.

As for the jury of peers, and I know this will sound elitist, but I question that it would have been a jury of my peers because I firmly agree with Jwright771984!

Hell, I'd have settled for a $20 Starbucks gift card, lol.

After seeing the bleeding peeled skin of a family friend after she was scalded, I'll never go to Starbucks again.

actually, I fell in Target on a wet floor and still have pain 3 years later in the hip I fell on, and the doctor told me I'll likely need a hip replacement by 60 because of the damage that was done. This obviously will change my future some, but I didn't sue. It was an ACCIDENT. No one tripped me, and honestly only one woman, an employee on her way out the door, helped me and acted concerned. And yes, it will affect my occupation as I'm a nurse.

Do you really think that a concussion has ruined this guy's life? Do you really believe that this guy is completely unable to work again? Do you really believe that a concussion three years ago has resulted in this guy being unable to satisfy his wife's needs? I think this couple got the perfect jury. Congratulations to them. Let the lawsuit lottery continue. Starbucks needs to sue the company that made the shoes that the chiropractor was wearing. Then the shoe company can sue the tile company for intentionally creating a tile pattern that caused their product to malfunction under extreme conditions. The tile company should then sue the A/C manufacturer who provides air conditioning at that store, since the unit created an atmospheric environment that was too humid to allow for the fast drying of liquids, thereby causing a hazardous condition.

Got hurt, got a lawyer, got a jury,may get paid.

NEXT!

sacombs ... to be fair, you don't have to be female to sue for loss of consortium.

I don't get it. Which head did he bang on the register again?

Hey Sacombs... if she had been the one that fell, he could do the same thing. It's not a he/she thing at all. Loss of consortium lawsuits happen all the time... when "either" spouse has an affair, the person the spouse is having the affair with can be used for loss of affection and consortium.

Lol mocomment! I went to Thee Doll House last night, spent a bunch of money and didn't get me none. Someone owes me MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!

You're right. In my opinion the kind of establishment you chose to fraternize should have no bouncers and an "anything" goes kind of atmosphere. Why should those who work in a place like that have anymore "right"not to be violated than those of us who do not engage in that type of career?

Yep....and Obama and the Democrats don't do anything about tort reform!!!

The vast majority of Congress people and Senators are lawyers. Like union people, they will stick together. Sometimes good ( unions) most times bad ( lawyers). Go to a courthouse and watch. Lawyers chatting in the halls and having coffee together, then go in the court room and call each other idiots. Afterwards, back to buddies again.

BTW: The best tort reform I have ever heard of is : damages cannot exceed actual costs and losses ( medical costs, and lost wages). Punitive damages cannot exceed three times the actual damages.

Would never get lawyers to agree. Average total would be in the $500,000.00 rnge, which lawyers if in trial, would get $200,000.00, plus expenses( $200.00 for a letter, $150.00 for a phone call, 4200.00 an hour for researching laws.) Victim would be lucky to get $100,000.00 out of it. lawyers are like psychologists - if no one has a problem, they have no business; so let's make some problems.

Totally different circumstances. Medical malpractice is often times unavoidable. Not paying attention, and slipping on the floor......totally avoidable.

Kookla - Medical malpractice is by definition an avoidable injury caused by professional negligence. Malpractice is not an unavoidable accident.