LOS ANGELES – A family is suing a US ski resort on the grounds that the hot chocolate they purchased was too… hot.

According to the California lawsuit, Brittany Burns and Joshua Moran Burns stopped for a drink at a cafe at the upscale Heavenly Mountain Resort in the middle of the morning after skiing with their five-year-old daughter.

According to the lawsuit, the waiter sprayed whipped cream on the drink and then passed it “directly to the minor” without a lid.

The “excessively and unnecessarily hot” liquid spilled into the child’s ski suit when she attempted to consume it, burning her abdomen and chest.

The resort and its employees are accused of negligence in the complaint, which wants damages for medical costs, loss of past and future income, and “loss of enjoyment in life.”

Probably “knew and should have known that such hot beverages posed a great hazard of causing just this type of incident and injuries.”

The child has lifelong scars from the two-year-old incident, according to Roger Dreyer, a Sacramento personal injury lawyer who is defending the Burns family.

He claimed that although visitors to ski areas take a certain amount of danger due to the activity, this case is different.

He said, “You’re not assuming they’ll cook the hot chocolate to a temperature that’s not consumable to a human being,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Heavenly Mountain’s owner, Vail Resorts, told AFP that they were unable to comment on ongoing legal proceedings.

In the litigious United States, lawsuits alleging hot drinks are excessively hot are not unusual.

Starbucks was mandated to compensate a customer $50 million last year for an injury caused by a cup of tea.

Following that decision, the firm was the target of at least two lawsuits alleging that drivers were hurt when alcohol spilled into their laps.

When 79-year-old Stella Liebeck was awarded almost $2.8 million after pouring hot coffee on herself, a historic court decision against McDonald’s in New Mexico in 1994 set somewhat of a precedent for Americans suing fast food chains.

The case has frequently been used as an illustration of the need to change US tort law, even though the verdict was reduced on appeal.