Comments on: “Uninsured motorist law foils hot coffee suit”

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:02:41 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 04:34:20 +0000

You mean there are people in California who have car insurance?

Wait, what?

By: Anonymous Attorney

Anonymous Attorney — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:41:30 +0000

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.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:48:22 +0000

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.

By: spo

spo — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:21:07 +0000

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?

By: CALACTX

CALACTX — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:35:11 +0000

Maybe drive-thru restaurants need to start serving everything cold! This would stop the lawsuit madness over hot coffee, hot tea and hot grease!

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 02:16:25 +0000

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.

By: spo

spo — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 19:56:19 +0000

As much as it would have pained me, I would not have upheld that decision. The car was incidental to the accident.

By: Frank C ostanza

Frank C ostanza — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:46:24 +0000

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?

By: Jay Markowitz

Jay Markowitz — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 04:51:57 +0000

In these cases, prolonged contact with skin is a necessary factor.