 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Webster v. Government Employees Insurance Co.12/2/1999
the Conclusion that plaintiff's injury resulted from the use of a motor vehicle....
Id. (Carson, C.J., Dissenting).
Appellants rely on several other cases, all of which we must distinguish because each involved an assailant or tortfeasor who was a driver. For instance, in McNeill v. Maryland Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 48 Md. App. 411 (1981), the plaintiff was injured when his car battery exploded during an attempt to "jump-start" his vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle, which was being used to help McNeill jump-start his car, lit a match while observing the plaintiff, causing the explosion. Id. at 412. This Court held that McNeill's injuries were covered under the other automobile's insurance policy because the injury arose out of, or had its source in, the use or operation of the automobile. Id. at 418-20.
In Harris v. Nationwide, 117 Md. App. 1, 699 A.2d 447 (1997), the plaintiff, a pedestrian, was injured when an unidentified driver grabbed the plaintiff's purse and dragged her 15 feet before speeding away. This Court held that the insured pedestrian was covered under her uninsured motorist provision because the assault arose out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the thief's vehicle. Id. at 17-18.
In Frazier v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board, 262 Md. 115 (1971), an unidentified driver threw a lighted firecracker or cherry bomb into the plaintiff's car. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs were covered under the uninsured motorist provision because their injuries arose out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle. Id. at 117-18. The Court of Appeals stated that the use of an automobile was directly, as opposed to merely incidentally, causally connected with the injuries. Id. at 117.
In this case, there was only one car and one driver - Saunders. The carjacker, Stewart, was neither physically inside nor in control of any vehicle. Furthermore, Webster's injuries were not causally connected to the use of an uninsured vehicle, but rather were caused by Stewart's assault. Therefore, injuries resulting from this attempted carjacking are not covered by the Maryland uninsured motorist provision.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
APPELLANTS TO PAY COSTS.
Page 1 2 3 4 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|