The claimant was the driver of a vehicle when she and her boyfriend were subject to a gun attack. The claimant’s boyfriend was hit by bullets and the claimant fled the scene in the vehicle and tried to find a hospital for her boyfriend. Her boyfriend eventually died of his injuries. The claimant argued that she was in an “accident” because she suffered psychological impairments as a result of not being able to find a hospital, which directly arose out of the use and operation of a vehicle. Adjudicator Flude rejected the claimant’s arguments. He held that the incident met neither the purpose test nor the causation test; the vehicle was simply the venue of the incident and its use and operation did not directly cause the claimant’s psychological impairments.
