[15] In the case before me the automobile was being used to allow the Plaintiff to acquire a hot beverage at a drive-through window of a fast food restaurant. That the beverage might inadvertently spill is a normal incident of the risk created by that use. Accordingly it cannot be said to have been outside the “ordinary course of things” as would be the case with such intervening acts as a drive-through attendant deliberately throwing hot coffee on the claimant or the claimant falling ill due to impurities in the coffee that was served. Such intervening acts would not be a normal incident of the risk created by the use of the car and would effectively break the chain of causation.
[16] When I apply the test for direct causation prescribed in the cases noted above, I am driven to the conclusion that the Plaintiff’s use of the automobile was a direct cause of her injuries.
Conclusion
[17] The Plaintiff’s impairment is a result of an accident as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. It follows that she is entitled to the Accident Benefits coverage provided for in her policy of insurance.