Category: Accident Definition

The claimant was involved in an assault by a motorcyclist and applied for accident benefits as a result. The insurer argued that the claimant had not been involved in an accident as denied by s. 3(1) of the SABS. The Tribunal agreed. Vice Chair Boyce highlighted that unless the vehicle itself is associated with a specific impairment, assaults are not considered accidents under the SABS. The assault was found by the Tribunal to have broken the chain of events, and that even where the use of a vehicle is the catalyst to a subsequent assault causing injury, it is not enough to show that the vehicle was merely in the vicinity. The use or operation of the vehicle must have directly caused the injury for an incident to constitute an accident.

The claimant was the victim of a physical assault after he had cut off a truck on the highway. The Tribunal found that this incident did not fall within the definition of an accident under the SABS as the claimant had failed to satisfy both the purpose and causation test. The vehicle was not responsible for the cause of the claimant’s impairments and the insurers denial was upheld.

The claimant applied to the LAT seeking entitlement to accident benefits. A preliminary issues hearing was held to determine whether the claimant was involved in an accident, as defined in the SABS. The claimant said that his Samsung mobile phone spontaneously exploded in his pocket while he was driving, and that he hit his head while hastily exiting the vehicle after he had pulled the vehicle over to a stop on the side of a highway following the explosion. The insurer argued that no accident occurred or that the accident was staged for the benefit of the claimant. The claimant was found to lack credibility. Adjudicator Norris drew an adverse inference from the claimant’s refusal to produce corroborating evidence and failure to call a key eyewitness of the incident. Adjudicator Norris concluded that the accident was staged for the claimant’s benefit, and that staged accidents were excluded from the definition of “accident” in the SABS. The application was dismissed.

The claimant had attended a vehicle dealership to pick a van that she and her spouse had purchased. Construction was underway in the dealership parking lot. The claimant exited the dealership and proceeded towards her van, which was located by a sidewalk. As the claimant walked to the van to open its door, she slipped on an unmarked strip of gravel and fell to the ground resulting in a fractured ankle. The claimant applied for accident benefits and the insurer denied the application, stating that the claimant was not involved in an “accident” as defined by the SABS. Vice Chair Johal noted that parking was an ordinary and well-known vehicular activity, and “but for” walking to the van the claimant would not have fractured her ankle. However, the claimant did not satisfy the third part of the test, as the “use or operation” of the vehicle was not the dominant feature of the claimant’s injuries. Vice Chair Johal noted that it was insufficient to establish direct causation by merely stating that the accident took place near the vehicle, or that the incident would not taken place if the vehicle had not been parked in that location. The claimant’s application for accident benefits was dismissed.

The claimant was a long haul truck driver taking a load from Brampton to Edmonton. The claimant testified that while driving, a fire started due to overheating of electrical wiring, and he was forced to jump out of the moving truck to prevent personal injuries. The insurer took the position that claimant deliberately set the trailer on file, and raised a preliminary issue, arguing that the setting of the fire was an intervening act that resulted in the injuries. Adjudicator Watt accepted the insurer’s position and dismissed the application on the basis that the operation of the truck did not cause the fire, and the fire was an intervening act which caused the damages. In doing so, he emphasized the lack of clarity and consistent evidence from the claimant on certain key issues, including how the fire started and why he was unable to bring the truck to a stop.

The issue before the LAT was whether the claimant was involved in an accident. Adjudicator Farlam dismissed the claimant’s application finding that the claimant was not involved in an accident as defined by the SABS. The claimant submitted that he sustained physical and psychological injuries when he had to move out of the way of a driver’s vehicle. According to the claimant, the driver of the vehicle was swerving while backing down a ramp and the claimant thought the driver was attempting to hit him. The claimant jumped out of the way of the vehicle, and alleged that he hurt his right knee and back suffered an exacerbation of his pre-existing psychological issues. Adjudicator Farlam agreed with Wawanesa that this incident did not constitute an accident. With respect to the purpose test, Adjudicator Farlam noted that the claimant’s EUO evidence was inconsistent with his evidence before the LAT. At his EUO, the claimant testified that he was aware the driver was planning to reverse down the ramp and he made a quick motion to get out of the way. There was no evidence that the claimant fell or was struck by any part of the vehicle. Adjudicator Farlam also found that the there was no credible objective evidence that the driver attempted to hit the claimant. As Adjudicator Farlam found that the accident did not met the purpose test, she noted that she did not need to address the causation test.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing that the claimant’s injuries did not arise out of the use or operation of an automobile and therefore did not meet the definition of an “accident” as defined by section 3(1) the SABS. The claimant drove to pick her brother up from a party, where she was verbally assaulted by partygoers and her vehicle was damaged. She then drove away from the initial incident, where the assault continued until the police arrived. The claimant alleged that she sustained significant psychological impairment as a result of the incident. The insurer argued that the two part test (the purpose test and the direct cause test) had not been met, because her psychological impairments were not caused through the use or operation of her automobile, and the verbal assaults and fear of physical assault were intervening acts that broke the chain of causation. Adjudicator Grant agreed with the insurer, and dismissed the application.

The claimant suffered injuries which rendered him paraplegic while attempting to load a GMC Sierra truck onto a trailer in order to move it to another location to be repaired. The trailer was attached to a Dodge truck driven by one of the claimant’s friends. The insurer sought a determination of whether the incident met the definition of an “accident” as defined under section 3(1) of the SABS. Adjudicator Farlam found that the purpose test was not met, because the claimant’s injuries were not the direct result of the ordinary use or operation of the insured vehicle. The vehicle was missing many parts, was not roadworthy, and not drivable under its own power. As such, Adjudicator Farlam determined that the vehicle had ceased to be a motor vehicle that could be motored in and became an object that used to be a motor vehicle. As she found that the purpose test had not been met, Adjudicator Farlam did not conduct an analysis concerning the direct cause test.