 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harris v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.9/2/1997
aintenance, or use of an automobile directly related, causally, to Mrs. Harris's injuries, or was the ownership, maintenance, or use of an automobile merely incidentally related, causally, to those injuries?
Certainly, Mrs. Harris's injuries were not directly related, causally, to the maintenance of an uninsured motor vehicle. Further, because there is no indication that Mrs. Harris's assailant owned the automobile used in the purse snatching, we cannot say that her injuries were directly related, causally, to the ownership of an uninsured motor vehicle. We can say, however, that Mrs. Harris's injuries were directly connected, causally, to the use of an uninsured motor vehicle. Indeed, had it not been for the assailant's use of the automobile, Mrs. Harris would probably not have been knocked to the ground as forcefully as she was in the attack, and she almost certainly would not have been roughly dragged along the ground for 15 feet. Thus, if not for the assailant's use of an automobile, Mrs. Harris's injuries would have been much less extensive than they were.
Because Mrs. Harris's injuries were directly connected, causally, to the use of a motor vehicle, they arose out of the "ownership, maintenance, or use" of an uninsured motor vehicle under ยง 541(c)(2)(i). For this reason, the circuit court erred when it ruled that Mrs. Harris's injuries did not arise out of the "ownership, maintenance, or use" of an uninsured motor vehicle, as those terms are used in the relevant insurance policy.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY REVERSED.
APPELLEE TO PAY THE COSTS.
|