The claimant was injured in an incident that involved a series of assaults, resulting in physical injuries. The facts of the case are unusual: The claimant heard a commotion on his street. He got in his vehicle and drove down his driveway where he was met by two assailants. The claimant opened the driver’s side door of his vehicle and one of the assailants struck him in the face. The claimant got back into his car and tried to drive the assailants off his property. More conflict ensued and the claimant exited his vehicle and put an assailant in a headlock. The other assailant then hit the claimant with a hammer and then the assailants fled the scene. The insurer denied the claim for accident benefits and the matter went to a preliminary issue hearing as to whether an accident occurred. Adjudicator Boyce held that the incident was an assault and not an accident. Adjudicator Boyce found that the dominant feature of the incident causing the claimant’s impairments was the assault and not the use of a vehicle and that it could not be said that the impairments arose from the “ordinary and well-known” use of a vehicle.
