A preliminary issues hearing was held to determine whether the claimant was involved in an “accident” as defined in s. 3(1) of the SABS. The claimant and insurer agreed on the following facts: On the day of the accident, the claimant drove to a feed store with her husband to purchase horse feed. The claimant and her husband were directed to pick up the horse feed from a shed. While walking from the shed to her car, the claimant had to navigate around a number of skids and pallets. While she was walking, the claimant raised her hand and clicked the key fob to remotely unlock her vehicle’s rear hatch so her husband could load the horse feed into the trunk. While clicking the key fob and observing the rear taillights of the vehicle flash, the claimant tripped over a slightly raised forklift tine. Adjudicator Parish found that the incident did not meet the purpose or causation test. In particular, this matter was distinguishable from previous LAT cases because the fall occurred prior to the vehicle being loaded with horse feed, the fall did not involve the claimant coming into contact with the vehicle, and the chain of causation was broken when the claimant parked her vehicle, shut it off, and locked the vehicle. Adjudicator Parish did not accept that pressing the key fob and observing the taillights flash established the use or operation of a vehicle. Adjudicator Parish found that the claimant was not involved in an “accident” as defined in the SABS. The application was dismissed.
