The claimant was a tow truck driver who sustained injuries while opening the garage bay door at a mechanic’s shop. He was opening the door to push a broken taxicab inside the garage. He sought benefits from his auto insurer, which were denied. The issue at the LAT was whether the claimant had been involved in an “accident” as defined in the SABS. Adjudicator Anwar found that the claimant was not involved in an accident under the SABS. The Adjudicator noted that Chisholm v. Liberty Mutual Group established a two part test that an claimant must satisfy in order for an “accident” to have taken place. The Adjudicator found that the claimant did not satisfy the Purpose Test, because the use or operation of the broken taxicab ended when the claimant unhooked the taxicab from his tow truck, which was prior to the incident. The claimant also did not satisfy the three inquiries of the Causation Test, because this incident would still have occurred even without the use or operation of the vehicle. Secondly, Adjudicator Anwar held that the act of opening the garage door was not a normal incident of the risk created by the claimant’s ordinary use of the tow truck. Thus, the incident was an intervening cause, and was not a natural occurrence arising out of the ordinary use of the automobile. Finally, Adjudicator Anwar concluded that the use of the automobile was not the factor that most closely caused the injury. The dominant feature that caused the injury was the unsuccessful act of opening the garage door, which was not related to the claimant’s use of the vehicle.
Menu