HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972
J
~arrier was obligated to provide a defens~
to its insured when a passenger in the
insureds' automobile was bitten by ir.sureds'
guard dog while the dog was being trans-
~orred in the automobile from the insureds'
home to their place of business. The auto-
mobile in that case was more than just the
physical situs of the dog bite; it was
being used for the specific purpose of
transporting the dog. The causal connec-
tion between the dog bite and the use of
the car is apparent. An analogous situation
would exist if the insureds were using their
automobile to transport explosives or other
dangerous substances and someone was injured.
In the other case,_Valdes v. Smallev, 303
So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert.denied,
341 So.2d 975 (Fla. 1977), the court found
that the wrongf ul death of a pedes~rian,
struck by a beer mug thrown by a passenger
in a moving automobile, arose out of the
use of the insured's.automobile. There, the
automobile from which the mug was thrown was
being driven at a high rate of speed which
no doubt greatly contributed to the velocity
of the mug. In both Corbo and Valdes there
was a factual basis for the court to find
a causal connection or relation between the
injury and the use of the automobile.
Appleton, supra at 1263.
In Anpleton, the vehicle was used to pick up the victim and was
the site of the attack. Here, the.vehicle was ~ised to transpor~
the assailant to the victim and was~he site from where the gun was
f ired. -
But, just as was true of the victim in Appleton,
ShaEfer-'s injury did not result from any incident of use of the
ve_hicle. The'~Eact that the tortfeasor was occupying the car at
the tir:-e of the shooting was no more than incidental and did not
make the injury one resulting from the use of the vehicle. To
hold such a relationship alone sufficient to constitute a causa2
connection would logically lead to absurd consequences, such as
allowing recovery under an automobile liability policy when a
vehicle is simply used as the means of transporting an assailant
to the location where an assault is committed. The injury was not
caused b_r the automobile but by the gunshot. From the standpoint
of causation, the injury could have occurred in the woods, in a
house or anywhere el~e. As we stated in A~leton, supra, a
crininal assault is not the usual risk anticipated under an auto-
mobi2e polic~ and for coverage to apply there must be a showing
- 4 - ' ~~K 34? P~~E 1~6
~ ~ . ~ ~~
~~_:.~~~. : : . ~ - ~. : ~.:~
~ y ~~':~~~~~.~~::~ ~, ~ . _;. =>~ - "`~§-~~~~' `