Case Comment: Miceli v. TD General Insurance Company, 2024

“Small things can turn everything around,” a renowned athlete once said. This observation could also apply in respect of SABS claims where claimants are injured by hot liquids or coffee while inside an automobile. In such cases, the role of a small coffee lid might influence the outcome of the hearing.

The case in point is the recently released LAT decision of Miceli ats TD.[1] The claimant was a seated passenger in a car that had lined up at a McDonald’s drive-thru. An employee passed an extra-large hot coffee to a family member, who then passed it on to the seated claimant. The claimant observed an “improperly placed lid” and hot coffee spilled onto the claimant. 

The application for accident benefits was subject to a preliminary motion to determine if an “accident” occurred pursuant to s.3(1) of the SABS.

According to that regulation, an incident meets the definition of an “accident” if “use or operation” of an automobile “directly causes” an impairment.

Established principles of caselaw provide that even if use or operation is accepted, there could still be an “intervening act” that interrupts the chain of causation. 

The adjudicator in Miceli accepted that the “purpose” test had been met, since using a vehicle in a drive-thru was a typical use of an automobile.

The “but for” test had been met, as the claimant would not have sustained the injury had she not been seated in the vehicle.

The claimant’s application failed because of an “intervening cause” of the improperly placed lid. The claimant had confirmed on three occasions that the coffee cup’s lid was not secure. She had related the same to at least one doctor. The fact that the claimant had issued a negligence action against McDonalds and that McDonald’s had settled the claim also formed part of the adjudicator’s reasons.

The claimant in Miceli was not without some support in prior decisions. In the often-cited decision of Dittmann,[2] another claimant seated inside a vehicle who had been handed hot coffee was determined to be involved in “an accident” under the SABS. In that case, the cup had fallen out of the claimant’s hands with no known involvement of a negligent employee or an improperly placed lid.

The presence of an unsecured lid is what ultimately determined the outcome in Miceli:

“…the fact that the lid was not secured properly was the intervening act that caused the injuries and broke the chain of causation. I find that the applicant’s injuries were not a consequence directly caused by the use or operation of the automobile. Rather, I find that her injuries resulted from an intervening cause, which was the improperly secured lid that caused the coffee to spill onto her…”[3]

Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.