The claimant was walking to her vehicle when she slipped and fell on ice. The fall happened as she was turning towards the driver’s side door and had activated the key fob to unlock the vehicle. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had satisfied the purpose test, as the accident arose from the ordinary and well-known activities for which automobiles are put. However, Vice Chair Maedel considered that conducting a dominant feature analysis would be appropriate in the circumstances. This analysis requires the Tribunal to determine the element of the incident that most directly caused the injuries. Vice Chair Maedel determined that the dominant feature in this case was the ice and not the vehicle. As a result, the claimant could not prove that the use or operation of an automobile had directly caused her injuries. The Tribunal rules that the claimant had not been involved in an “accident”.
