While an incident in a vehicle might sound the same as an accident, only one qualifies for compensation under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).
Recently, Car Accident Lawyers Toronto helped a client injured after falling against a metal door in the back of a police van. Although injured during normal vehicle operation, the insurer denied benefits, claiming it wasn’t a motor vehicle “accident” as per section 3(1) of SABS.
Upon review, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) sided with our client, determining the injuries were directly caused by the use of the vehicle, marking a significant win for injured parties in similar situations.
Understanding the Details of the Case
On September 21, 2021, Jane Doe, the applicant, was in the back of a Toronto police van. Seated on a metal bench and handcuffed without a seatbelt, she appeared drowsy or intoxicated on video footage. She occasionally leaned her head against the side of the van or between her legs.
After 55 minutes, the van stopped. As Jane waited for the doors to open, she fell asleep, gradually leaning to her right until she struck her head against the metal door. She immediately requested medical assistance and was taken out of the van within a minute.
Jane sustained a cut above her right eyebrow, requiring stitches, and suffered a concussion.
Defining an “Accident”: Key Tests
Jane’s application for accident benefits was denied by Northbridge General Insurance Company. She appealed to the LAT.
The LAT Adjudicator had to determine if the incident met the “accident” definition under section 3(1) of SABS. Citing Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Caughy, the test consists of two parts:
- Purpose Test: Did the incident arise from the use or operation of a vehicle?
- Causation Test: Did the vehicle’s use directly cause the impairment?
Both parties agreed that the purpose test was satisfied since Jane was a passenger. The contention was whether it met the causation test.
To decide, the Adjudicator considered:
- “But For” Test: Would the injury have occurred but for the vehicle’s use?
- Intervening Act: Was there an event that broke the causation chain?
- Dominant Feature: Was vehicle use the primary cause?
Evaluating Cause vs. Location of Injury
Jane argued that her injuries resulted from her position as a passenger when she fell, claiming that the vehicle’s operation was the cause. Northbridge countered, suggesting that her drowsiness or decision to sleep were intervening factors, not the vehicle’s operation. Alternatively, they argued that the injury was foreseeable due to negligence by police, not vehicle use.
The Adjudicator’s Ruling
LAT Adjudicator Katie Grieves concluded that Jane would not have been injured “but for” her use of the vehicle. She rejected the argument that Jane’s drowsiness was an intervening factor, noting that being in the van and striking her head were directly linked to her injuries.
Even if there was negligence by the police, it was only a contributing factor, not the direct cause.
Taking on Challenging Cases
At Car Accident Lawyers Toronto, we carefully evaluate each case during our free consultations. If we believe we can help you obtain compensation, we’ll become your dedicated advocates.
Receiving a denial letter from an insurer can feel hopeless, but remember—hope starts here. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in an accident, contact us today to learn how we can assist you.
