 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bredemeier v. Farmers Insurance Exchange6/5/1997
e court stated:
In Kohl, we explained that in order to establish the requisite causal relationship between the use of the vehicle and the injury , the claimant must show that the accident would not have occurred but for the vehicle's use. . . . Although the use of 'but for' terminology suggests that the use of the vehicle must be the cause of the injuries, we have utilized a more liberal interpretation in our cases. We have not required that the vehicle be moving at the time of the accident or that the vehicle be the sole cause of the accident. In fact, we have interpreted the test as requiring the plaintiff to show only that the injury originated in, grew out of, or flowed from the use of a vehicle. . . . Thus, the causation test does not require that the insured vehicle itself be the source of the injury, only that the use be integrally related to the claimant's activities and the injury at the time of the accident.
Here, the motor vehicle was parked in a cross-hatched area of a parking lot such that it obscured the lighting used to illuminate a speed bump for pedestrians and other vehicles using the parking lot. Under these circumstances, in my view, this use of the vehicle is, as a matter of law, integrally related to the accident. Stated otherwise, the accident necessarily grew out of, or flowed from, the parking of the vehicle in this particular manner.
Contrary to the view of the majority, I do not read State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Beeson, 183 Colo. 284, 516 P.2d 623 (1973) as applicable to the facts here. In Beeson, the manner in which the car was parked had no causal relationship with the unfortunate accident. Such is not the case here.
Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
|