A New Jersey appellate court says a man cannot seek damages for burns he suffered while bowing his head in prayer over a sizzling steak fajita skillet at an Applebee's restaurant. The ruling made public Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that dismissed his lawsuit. The man - identified in court papers as Hiram Jimenez - claimed a waitress didn't warn him the dish was hot. The lower court, however, found that the food posed an 'open and obvious' danger. Ruling: A New Jersey appellate court says a man cannot seek damages from Applebee's for burns he suffered while bowing his head in prayer over a sizzling steak fajita skillet at a restaurant . The incident happened in March 2010 at an Applebee's restaurant in Westampton, New Jersey. Jimenez said he bowed his head, then heard a loud sizzle followed by a grease pop. He then felt a burning sensation in his left eye and on his face. Jimenez said he panicked and knocked the food on his lap, causing more burns. The burns didn't cause scarring. The appellate court ruling said 'Plaintiff alleged that, on March 4, 2010, while a business invitee at Applebee's, he was injured solely as a result of defendants' negligence when he came in contact with a dangerous and hazardous condition, specifically, "a plate of hot food."' 'Here, the danger posed by a plate of sizzling hot food was self-evident,' the ruling said. 'Therefore, we conclude that the motion judge correctly determined that defendants had no duty to warn plaintiff that the food was sizzling hot and should be approached with due care.' Darren Audino, an attorney representing Applebee's, declined to comment. A message seeking comment from Jimenez's attorney, Richard Wiener, wasn't immediately returned. In prayer: Hiram Jimenez said he bowed his head, then heard a loud sizzle followed by a grease pop. He then felt a burning sensation in his left eye and on his face .
The ruling said Hiram Jimenez cannot seek damages for burns he suffered while bowing his head in prayer over a sizzling steak fajita skillet . Jimenez claimed a waitress didn't warn him the dish was hot . The lower court found that the food posed an 'open and obvious' danger . An appellate court said 'the danger posed by a plate of sizzling hot food was self-evident'