... it would obviously have to be after, Pete. It seems unlikely that a non-suit would apply to this situation.

I did plaintiff's personal injury work for about ten years (along with criminal defense work) and handled perhaps 300 PI cases. I have never done insurance (or PI) defense.

I nevertheless have no problem agreeing with Bob Orme's observation that Stella should have borne 100% responsibility for her own injuries. Perhaps the legal doctrine could be called "IIS" -- for "Intervening Independent Stupidity" (used to be called contributory negligence, though that doctrine has been battered beyond recognition by legal "reformers" who think that no one should ever have to pay for their own stupidity).

The basis upon which she won (that the coffee was "too hot") is complete nonsense. Coffee is supposed to be hot. You're not supposed to spill it in your lap. IMO, there is no temperature at which coffee could be served that would justify a plaintiff's award in this kind of case (inasmuch as it cannot exceed 212 degrees, more or less).

One corollary to my:

>> No man has greater courage, honor and integrity
>> than he who forthrightly accepts responsibility
>> for his actions, regardless of the consequences.

... is:

>> He who injures himself through his own stupidity
>> ought not to look to others for compensation.

BTW, the use of "frivolous lawsuit" laws will never stop them because the standard for "frivolousness" is nearly impossible to meet (at least in California). I would favor a "prevailing party" standard (and yes, I know all the arguments against such a standard in PI cases; I just don't agree with them).

----- jim o\-S