The claimant was stopped at a drive-thru window at Tim Hortons. His vehicle was in drive mode. As he transferred the coffee cup, the lid came off and the upper brim of the cup collapsed inwards, spilling coffee over the sides of the cup and onto his lap. The respondent raised a preliminary issue, taking the position that the claimant was not involved in an “accident” under section 3(1) of the SABS. Adjudicator Kaur agreed with the respondent and found that the claimant was not involved in an “accident”. The use of a vehicle in the drive-thru of a restaurant satisfied the purpose test. However, the causation test was not met. Although Adjudicator Kaur accepted that “but for” the use of the vehicle, the claimant would not have sustained the injuries, he emphasized that the “but for” test did not conclusively establish legal causation. The analysis then turned to a consideration of whether there was an intervening act that severed the chain. The fact that the lid was not secured properly was an intervening act that caused the injuries and broke the chain of causation. As such, the claimant’s injuries were not a consequence directly arising out of the use or operation of the vehicle. Rather, the claimant’s injuries resulted from an intervening cause which was the improperly secured lid that caused the coffee to spill on him.
