The announcement came after Judge Donald Stephens told the jury that both sides in the case were willing to accept the verdict of a majority of 10 jurors and would not require a unanimous decision.
"In a democracy," Judge Stevens told jurors, "we normally resolve matters of dispute or important matters by majority vote, frankly. We pass legislation, we elect presidents and governors, rule the people by majority vote. When things are really important we require a super-majority to make those decisions. The only place we require a unanimous decision is in the courthouse and courtroom."
Lt. Matthew Kohr claimed the coffee chain was negligent because the lid of a free cup of coffee he got in 2012 popped off and the cup collapsed. He also claimed the incident caused such severe stress it activated his Crohn's disease, which required surgery to remove part of his intestine.
"We're disappointed," said Daniel Johnson, Kohr's attorney. "We appreciate the jury's time and attention."
After the verdict, Kohr spoke with reporters and thanked jurors for hearing his case.
"I really appreciate their time, doing their civic duty, and helping us with our dispute," he said. "We thank everybody for the support and we're looking forward to moving on and putting this behind us and moving forward."
Lawyers for the two sides wrapped up their closing arguments Friday morning
"In this case, Starbucks delivered coffee in an unsafe container. Starbucks delivered coffee in a 20-ounce cup with no sleeve - a cup with an improperly secured lid. Starbucks delivered coffee that failed to conform with their own security policy," said Kohr's attorney Daniel Johnson.
Starbucks does have a policy that so-called "Venti" coffees (large coffees) should be served with a "sleeve" and Kohr contends his coffee did not have the cardboard holding device.
"When you've heard about Matt's life and his career," Kohr's lawyer asked jurors, "what words have been used to describe him? Strong proud, determined, a hard-working cop, a leader, a loving husband, an involved father. What words have we heard used to describe Matt after he suffered this injury? Pitiful, a mess, crying like a little girl, acting like he's got a few days to live."
Starbucks attorney, Tricia Derr, pushed back on every point, questioning the connection between the burn and what happened to Kohr after, questioning the motivations, diagnoses, and treatments of Kohr's doctor, and questioning the basic premise that Starbucks was at fault.
Derr said Kohr drove home to have the injury photographed by his wife before he went to an urgent care facility more than two hours after he was burned. But Kohr testified he was not thinking about pursuing legal action at the time.
Click here to see some of the evidence photos from the trial.
"Starbucks was not negligent," Derr told jurors. "Starbucks served a product the way they always do and it did what it was supposed to do; it was a good cup of coffee. If the dots don't connect and you don't have the cause and effect relationship between what Starbucks did or didn't do and what actually happened to Mr. Kohr, then they haven't met their burden."
Kohr and his wife were suing Starbucks for $750,000.
Report a Typo