A farmer worker injured by a fire started by a truck is entitled to automobile insurance benefits
The Insured was successful in obtaining no-fault insurance benefits pursuant to the Saskatchewan Automobile Accident Insurance Act due to the Court's finding that his injuries were caused by the use of a motor vehicle.
Hagen v. Hillcrest Enterprises Ltd. March 28, 2008. Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench. Zarzeczny J.
The Insured was injured when a fire started on the Defendant Hillcrest's farming operations during the harvesting of a bumper winter wheat crop. The evidence was that the fire started when one of the personal Defendants drove a Chevy half-ton truck onto the wheat field and toward three combines which had ceased their harvesting operations because they were full and needed to reload. Because of the heat, the high stubble, trash on the field and the accumulated debris under it, the Chevy truck caught fire. The fire spread quickly despite efforts of the Insured and others to put it out. The Insured was badly burned and spent many days in a medically induced coma and many months thereafter being treated for and recovering from his injuries.
The Insured applied for and was denied no-fault insurance benefits from the Provincial motor vehicle insurer pursuant to the Saskatchewan Automobile Accident Insurance Act. The Insured appealed that decision to this Court. In denying benefits, the Insurer argued that the injuries sustained by the Insured were the result of his attempting to extinguish a winter wheat stubble fire, as opposed to the result of use of a motor vehicle.
The Court reviewed the relevant legislative provisions in the Automobile Accident Insurance Act and the evidence from various lay witnesses given at trial. Justice Zarzecezny concluded that, based on uncontradicted evidence, it was the Chevy truck that caused the fire and the fire which caused the Insured's injuries. His Lordship then reviewed the case law dealing with the issue of "causation" in the context of injuries sustained involving a motor vehicle. Specifically, he referred to the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Vytlingam (Litigation Guardian of) v. Farmer, 2007 SCC 46; 286 D.L.R. (4th) 577 and Herbison v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, 2007 SCC 47, 286 D.L.R. (4th) 592 that deal with the test to be applied to determine whether or not injuries were "caused by an automobile".
Justice Zarzeczny characterized the central question in this case as whether or not "there was an unbroken chain of causation" linking the Insured's injuries to the use and operation of the Chevy truck. The Insurer argued that it was not the use of the vehicle that caused the Insured's injuries but rather, the Insured's own decision to fight the fire in the manner that he did on a hot, windy day knowing the conditions of the field at that time.
The Court rejected this argument and concluded that there was no question that the Insured's injuries were caused by the Chevy truck and/or the use of it. Justice Zarzeczny found that there was clearly an unbroken chain of causation linking the conduct of the motorist to the injuries suffered by the Insured as a result of the fire, which had been started and subsequently was exacerbated by moving the motor vehicle in a circular motion. There was no intervening act such as was the case in either Vytlingam or Herbison.
In the result, the Court found that the Insured was entitled to no-fault benefits under Part VIII of the Act.
This case was digested by Shanti Davies and edited by David W. Pilley of Harper Grey LLP.