Yeah, our firm was all over that one, and in some respects, I agree. It's not that the applicant merely spilled her coffee; rather, she got her coffee at a drive-thru with the lid not properly affixed. Her injuries (burns) arose directly out of the manner in which she obtained her coffee, which was via the well-accepted practice of using a drive-thru.
The SABS define an accident as:
Definitions and interpretation
3. (1) In this Regulation,
“accident” means an incident in which the use or operation of an automobile directly causes an impairment or directly causes damage to any prescription eyewear, denture, hearing aid, prosthesis or other medical or dental device;
...
“impairment” means a loss or abnormality of a psychological, physiological or anatomical structure or function;
Whether or not that changes your mind, I think the decision is a valid one much like the famed Casino Rama bus (a woman tripped while trying to get on the bus) or the drive-by shooting cases (since a vehicle is paramount to the definition of a "drive-by" shooting).
______________________________________________________________________
Here's a file I have (pending - so no fine details) for ya'll to consider:
A person is employed by some Canadian City to drive its disabled transportation buses. Part of the job description is to escort passengers off the bus, but there is no requirement to escort them to their doors directly.
The employee driver stops the bus, helps a passenger off, walks that passenger to the building, presses the buzzer, helps the passenger inside the building, then exits the building, takes 4 steps before slipping and falling on ice about 30-feet away from the bus, which was turned off at the time and the keys in the driver's pocket.
...is that "use or operation" of an automobile, and did that "use or operation" directly cause the slip and fall?
