The claimant was riding an ATV when she was shot in her left hand in a hunting incident. The ATV was stationary at the time, and the claimant did not fall or hit any part of her body on the ATV. She made a claim for accident benefits. The insurer argued that the incident did not qualify as an accident. Adjudicator Grant concluded that the incident was not an accident. The parties agreed that the purpose test was met. The “but for” factor was not met, as there was no evidence that the use of an ATV increased the likelihood of being shot. The shooting was an intervening act that broke the chain of events, and was not part of the “ordinary course of thing.” Finally, the dominant feature was the claimant being shot; at no time was the shooting a part of the ordinary use or operation of a motor vehicle.
Menu