 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ply v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh11/12/2003
t operation of a vehicle as to leave the employee with the impression that only such operation is appropriate. In such a situation, the employer may be considered to be responsible for the personal physical management of the vehicle.
Winchester, J., dissenting, with whom Opala, V.C.J., and Hargrave, J., join:
Sometimes legal reasoning becomes so convoluted when applying marginally applicable cases in the construction of statutes that the end result bears no resemblance to the apparent intent of the statute. I believe that is true in this case. Uptegraft v. Home Ins. Co., 1983 OK 41, 6, 662 P.2d 681, 683-684 states: "The purpose of an uninsured motorist provision in an insurance contract is to protect the insured from the effects of personal injury resulting from an accident with another motorist who carries no insurance or is underinsured." At the risk of oversimplifying, who is the uninsured/underinsured motorist? The plaintiff had been the only motorist, and at the time of his accident, he was not a motorist.
The truck was parked and the plaintiff was working alone in a raised bucket mounted on the back of the truck when he received severe electrical shock because the bucket contacted a live electrical line. The plaintiff properly recovered workers compensation benefits. But he now sues for uninsured motorist benefits. Clearly the truck did not contribute to his injuries. It was his operation of the bucket that caused his injury , independent of the truck it was mounted on.
I would answer, "No," to both the federal certified questions.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|