A lawsuit over a hot coffee mishap in the fast-food drive-through lane turns out to be barred by California’s financial responsibility law, which “prohibits uninsured motorists … from collecting noneconomic damages in any action arising out of the operation or use of a motor vehicle.” [Pat Murphy, Lawyers USA “Benchmarks”]
11 Comments
And add Jack in the Box to the list of fast-food vendors that serve coffee hot enough to cause second-degree burns, even through clothing.
In these cases, prolonged contact with skin is a necessary factor.
Doesn’t anyone consider it wrong of her to grab a hot cup of coffee the REMOVABLE cover, which then came off AS IT IS INTENDED TO DO?
As much as it would have pained me, I would not have upheld that decision. The car was incidental to the accident.
spo: One of the reasons she was so badly burned was because she was trapped in her car (by the side of the drive-thru) and unable to exit it. I think that makes the car more than incidental. This type of accident is a risk unique to a drive-thru.
Maybe drive-thru restaurants need to start serving everything cold! This would stop the lawsuit madness over hot coffee, hot tea and hot grease!
David, I get that, but do you really think that the statute’s meaning should turn on that? What if some moron were negligently discharging a firearm, hit the woman while she was driving and she wound up getting into an accident, which exacerbated her injuries?
The statute is meant to punish people who drive without insurance. If you are worried about being hit with a stray bullet, and having limited legal rights, get the insurance.
Much as I relish this result, I must agree with spo. The law means to cover accidents, not incidentals like this. I’d say the same thing for someone trying to get coverage from their auto insurance as a result of accidentally shooting themselves while leaning on the bumper to clean a rifle.
You mean there are people in California who have car insurance?
Wait, what?
spo: Yes. Having something decrease your ability to operate vehicle you are driving which causes you to get into an accident is a risk unique to operating a motor vehicle. Can you seriously argue that this accident didn’t flow from the operation of the vehicle?
Anonymous Attorney: In the case of someone leaning on a bumper, there are no risks unique to the operation of a motor vehicle involved. The hypothetical is not comparable.
Remember, these are only non-economic damages that are limited. And the State wants to limit to be broad to encourage people not to operate a vehicle without insurance.