Print

 

Volume. 5 Issue. 34- July 28, 2021



In this week’s edition, an all ‘accident definition’ issue, the LAT rules on two cases involving falling off and falling into a car respectively. The misfortune of falling is considered in the context of the purpose and causation test. One meets the test and one does not. What distinguishes these two cases?

In the last case, the purpose test is the main consideration, as the vehicle involved, which was being loaded onto a trailer, had ceased being a “motor vehicle”.

Advance your best case with for and against information. The investment is worth it! Submit your OAR request through Live Chat!



In Trending – Does Falling Off/Into Car or Loading Inoperable Vehicle Meet the ‘Accident’ Definition?

A Fall is Just a Fall – In Madore v Intact (20-000703), the Tribunal considered a matter in which Madore was on the roof of his trailer checking the roof and slide-outs when he fell onto the ground and sustained significant injuries. The Tribunal did accept that the incident met the purpose test as the inspection and cleaning was determined to be part of the ordinary activities to which a trailer would be put. However, the Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the injuries were the result of Madore having fallen from the roof of the trailer and landing on the ground.

It was determined that the incident did not involve “using or operating an automobile” that directly caused the injuries, for the purposes of satisfying this branch of the causation test. Further, “(t)he mere location on or near a vehicle at the time of an incident does not automatically meet the requirements of the causation test.” There would need to be evidence that the “fall was as a result of tripping on some part of the trailer and the injuries were directly caused by the trailer.” Absent evidence in support of same, “the loss of footing, due to misfortune, is an intervening act and not at all directly caused by the trailer…(and) losing his footing on top of the trailer is not part of the ‘ordinary course of things’.”

Parked Car as “Dominant Feature” – In Montesano v Western Assurance (19-006780), the Tribunal considered an incident in which Montesano, after smoking a cigarette, proceeded up her driveway towards her house, then tripped and struck her face against the rear bumper of the vehicle before falling to the ground. Montesano contended that the fact of the car being parked in the driveway satisfied the purpose test, and but for this fact she would not have struck her face, there was no intervening event breaking the causal link, and the vehicle was the dominant feature of her injuries.

The Respondent submitted that the presence of the vehicle did not satisfy the purpose test, as “she was simply smoking a cigarette near her vehicle and incidentally tripped into it.” Further, Montesano’s “end of journey” was 3.5 hours prior, and there were no plans to use the car that day. There was also no evidence to support the contention that the “use or operation of the vehicle had been uninterrupted”. The Respondent also relied upon a note in the family doctor’s records that she had tripped on a water control pipe. The Respondent relied upon a number of prior decisions, however the Tribunal found all such to be “easily distinguishable because none of the insured’s injuries were caused by striking or even making contact with a vehicle.” In the matter at hand, it was however found difficult to overlook two cases, Caughy and D.S., wherein injuries were actually caused by falling into a parked vehicle, thereby satisfying both the Purpose and Causation tests.

The Tribunal found that Montesano’s journey or potential journey was not relevant when there is a direct collision with a vehicle causing impairments, and further that the cause of the trip and fall was not a relevant consideration “when there is no dispute that the applicant’s impairments were caused by an impact with a parked vehicle.” Therefore, but for the vehicle’s presence, Montesano would not have struck her face on the bumper when she fell. There was “no intervening act or event from an independent source that breaks up the causal link between her trip and fall and her injuries.” In addition, “the rear bumper on which she struck her face was the dominant feature causing her injuries.”

Vehicle Ceased Being a Motor Vehicle – Finally, in Northbridge v Robinson (19-009743), the Tribunal considered a matter wherein Robinson was rendered a paraplegic as a result of an incident involving he and two friends attempting to load a vehicle onto a trailer, in order to move it to a location to be repaired. The insurer submitted that it had been paying benefits as a “goodwill gesture”, as it was their belief that the injuries sustained were not as the result of an “accident”, as defined under the Schedule.

Robinson argued that the insurer was “only interested in having a determination as to whether or not the vehicle it insured was in an accident…this is too narrow and the Order is too narrowly worded”, as there were other vehicles involved for which a priority dispute was in progress. Therefore, “(t)he fact that the vehicle was inoperable doesn’t really matter.” In Robinson’s view, the question to be determined is “did an accident take place?” Notwithstanding, the Tribunal found that the preliminary issue “is a threshold issue to the dispute between the two parties to this application and is properly before me for determination.”

The insurer contended that the incident met neither the purpose nor causation test, as the vehicle they insured (the one being lifted) was not roadworthy, had not been for some time prior, and the injuries were sustained as said vehicle was being loaded onto a trailer. Robinson countered that the trailer was a vehicle, attached to an operable truck. The injuries would not have occurred “but for the use of the trailer attached to the Dodge truck and [Robinson]’s injuries are a direct result of the use of the vehicle.” The Tribunal confirmed that the “but for” test does not establish legal causation, rather “serves to “screen out factors that made no difference to the outcome.” Further, this would not be relevant in cases such as this, where the “purpose test” was not met.

The Tribunal found that “the moving of a vehicle incapable of motoring does not constitute in my view the ordinary use or operation of the vehicle…the vehicle had ceased to be a motor vehicle that could be motored in and became an object that used to be a motor vehicle.” In order to satisfy the definition of “accident”, the use or operation of the vehicle must be a direct cause, and “(m)anually moving the vehicle with human power assisted by tools is not equivalent to operating the vehicle but instead is the opposite of operating it… Taken in totality, the weight of the [insurer]’s evidence is clear that [Robinson]’s injuries did not arise out of the ordinary use or operation of the vehicle and I so find.”



Related LAT inFORMER issues:
No AB Entitlement for Vehicle Not Used for Motoring Purpose



Access inHEALTH’s research resources through Live Chat and receive your OAR. Get It now!

 

Archive of LAT Updates

March 27, 2024: Supreme Court Takes Issue with Tribunal, Divisional Court & Court of Appeal

Limitation Period, Reconsideration, Supreme Court

March 25, 2024: Expert’s Conclusory Statement Insufficient on Pre-existing Condition

MIG

March 20, 2024: Non-Compliance by Both Parties Impacts IRB and Medical Claims

IRB

March 18, 2024: No Weight Afforded to Handwritten Illegible CNR’s

MIG

March 13, 2024: Denials Deficient and Pain Relief Validates Treatment Plans

Treatment Plans

March 11, 2024: “Radicular Irritation” & MRI Findings Not MVA Related

MIG

March 6, 2024: Tribunal Upholds Decision Excluding Improperly Secured IEs From the Evidence

Evidence, IE, Reconsideration

March 4, 2024: Concussion and Chronic Pain Diagnoses Require Expertise

MIG

February 28, 2024: Prior Health Concerns Complicate Claim for CAT

CAT

February 26, 2024: Unchallenged Virtual Chronic Pain Assessment Accepted

MIG

February 21, 2024: Consent by Parties for Adjournment Not Determinative

Adjournment, Procedure

February 14, 2024: Tribunal Does Not Accept the CAT Findings of Either Party

CAT

February 12, 2024: MIG Escape on Concussion Diagnosis Despite Resolution of Symptoms

MIG

February 7, 2024: Financial Hardship Not A Defense for Repayment Responsibility

IRB

February 5, 2024: CT Scan of Wrist Fracture Contradicts Medical Opinion

MIG

January 29, 2024: Concussion Despite No Head Injury?

MIG

January 24, 2024: One Assessment Process Produces Two Discrete Reports

CAT, Productions

January 22, 2024: Defective Notices Do Not Trigger Limitation

MIG

January 17, 2024: Election Not Required, LAT Act Invoked & Limits Exhausted?

Award, Limitation Period

January 15, 2024: Chronic Pain Diagnosis Contradicted by Self-Reports

MIG

January 10, 2024: NEB Reinstated After Six Years Generates Award

Award, NEB

January 8, 2024: Undisputed Psychological Diagnosis Prevails

MIG

January 3, 2024: Significant & Competing Price of Non-Compliance for Both Parties

Non-Compliance

December 20, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Statutory Relief Within Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

December 18, 2023: ‘Incident’ of Viewing Video Not Use and Operation

MIG

December 13, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

December 11, 2023: Chronic Pain Diagnosis In Absence of Physical Exam?

MIG

December 6, 2023: Four Marked Impairments for 2010 MVA

CAT

December 4, 2023: No Adverse Inference Drawn Despite Lack of pre MVA CNRs

MIG

November 29, 2023 (THROWBACK EDITION): 18 Month Delayed Notice Reasonable, However 7 Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

November 27, 2023: Confirmed High Bar to Escape MIG on Pre-Existing

MIG

November 22, 2023: Multiple IEs Excluded From Evidence

IE, Evidence

November 20, 2023: Radiculopathy Complaint Requires a Diagnosis

MIG

November 15, 2023: Court Applies Tomec & CAT Decision Varied

CAT, Limitation Period

November 13, 2023: Insurer Expert Conclusion Inconsistent with Findings

MIG

November 8, 2023: Maximum Award in Excess of $60K on CAT Case

CAT

November 6, 2023: Medical Evidence Overrides Legal Referrals

MIG

November 1, 2023: Eighteen Month Delayed Notice Reasonable However Seven Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

October 30, 2023: Which MVA Exacerbated Injuries?

MIG

October 25, 2023: Application Seeking CAT Determination an Abuse of Process

CAT

October 23, 2023: Functional Disability Despite 50 Hour Work Week

MIG

October 18, 2023: Statutory Relief Renders Equitable Remedy Moot

Div Court

October 16, 2023: Injuries Not Static - MIG Determined Again

MIG

October 11, 2023: CERB is Income However Not “Gross Employment Income”

IRB

October 4, 2023: Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

October 2, 2023: ‘IE’ Does Not Establish Causation

MIG

September 27, 2023: Post June 1 CAT Criterion 8 Satisfied

CAT

September 25, 2023: Chronic Pain Distinct from Recurring Pain

MIG

September 20, 2023: Expert Opinion Not Required for IRB Entitlement

IRB

September 18, 2023: Inconsistency Argument Not Accepted

MIG

September 13, 2023: IRB Payment Delayed Four Years – 20% Award

Award, IRB

September 11, 2023: MIG Determined Absent Applicants Written Submissions

MIG

August 30, 2023: Pain Determinative in Successful Post June 1 CAT Case

CAT

August 28, 2023: Knee Injury from MVA Caused Slip and Fall & ACL Tear?

MIG

August 23, 2023: WSIB Placement Qualifies for IRB

IRB

August 21, 2023: Absence of Applicant’s Medicals A Difference Maker

MIG

Contact Sales

416.364.6688

Contact Support

Contact Us

InHealth

11 Allstate Parkway Suite 203
Markham, Ontario
L3R 9T8

Follow Us On