Published: Mon, February 12, 2018

Family sues Starbucks after 2-year-old girl allegedly drinks barista's blood

Family sues Starbucks after 2-year-old girl allegedly drinks barista's blood

A California family claims that Starbucks served them coffee containing a barista's blood, and is now suing the chain on grounds that it inflicted "stress, nervousness, fright, anguish, grief, anxiety, worry, and shock".

It wasn't until they returned home with their drinks that they realised something was amiss.

She said that the cups had a "strong metallic smell".

After putting the clues together and realizing that the stain and smell pointed to blood, the family made a decision to call the establishment to report the incident.

They then realised that their two-year-old daughter had been drinking from another cup with a similar stain on the inside of the rim.

"She was licking the whipped cream where it had been sitting on top", Vice told CBS Los Angeles, describing the moment she noticed the drink was corpuscle-enhanced.

The San Bernardino location where they purchased the bloody drinks acknowledged that an employee was bleeding.

"I thought maybe I'd be a little more at peace if they would have her tested, the one who was bleeding", Vice said. Attorneys said the manager initially agreed to have the employee take the blood test, but it was never performed.

The first test came back negative, but they had to do another one six months later to make sure they were clean.

A customer service representative at the corporate office subsequently told Agles they could not force the barista to take a blood test, the suit alleges.

Starbucks has offered the family $1,000 each, however, the family's lawyer claims that this amount is not enough for the distress that has been caused.

But the family's attorney, Stan Pekler, told KTLA the sum "does not begin to compensate the family for suffered injuries and damages for which Starbucks is liable".

The Independent has contacted Starbucks for comment.

The lawsuit seeks damages on claims of failure to warn the family, negligence, breach of express and implied warranty, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, assault, negligent hiring and negligent training and supervision, Pekler said.

"We'll work with the family to try to get to a place where they feel comfortable and to better understand these allegations", he said.

"In this instance, we've been working with the family directly since nearly immediately after they informed us of their experience", he said.

Like this: