Los Angeles, United States (AFP) — Starbucks was facing another lawsuit over a spilled hot drink Wednesday, just weeks after a court ordered the coffee giant to pay $50 million to a man who was injured by a cup of tea.

A lawsuit lodged in California claims Sabrina Michelle Hermes was seriously hurt when hot liquid tipped into her lap at a drive-through in Norwalk, near Los Angeles, two years ago.

The suit, filed at the city’s superior court, claims one of the cups in her order was not properly secured when it was handed to her, and the drink sloshed out onto her legs, a hip, a knee and her feet, causing severe injuries.

Starbucks, “owed a duty to exercise reasonable care with respect to the preparation, handling and service of hot beverages so as to prevent them from spilling onto and injuring customers such as plaintiff,” the suit says.

The negligence suit seeks unspecified general and special damages, including reimbursement for past and future medical costs and lost earnings.

A spokesperson for Starbucks told AFP on Wednesday the company would be contesting the claim.

“We have always been committed to the highest safety standards in our stores, including the handling of hot drinks,” the spokesperson said.

“We are aware of Ms Hermes’ claims and firmly believe they are without merit. We look forward to presenting our case in court.”

Last month a jury in Los Angeles ordered the firm to pay $50 million to delivery driver Michael Garcia, who suffered burns when a super-sized drink spilled in his lap at a drive-through.

Garcia’s lawyers claimed the server who handed him three large drinks in February 2020 did not push one of them into the cardboard cupholder properly.

Starbucks said at the time of the ruling that it would appeal the award, which it said was “excessive”.

A landmark legal ruling against McDonalds in New Mexico in 1994 established something of a precedent for Americans suing fast food companies when 79-year-old Stella Liebeck was awarded over $2.8 million after spilling hot coffee on herself.

Although the award was reduced on appeal, the case was often cited as an example of the need to reform US tort laws.