Opinion ID: 1119102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Definition of operator of a vehicle

Text: Under section 3636(B) and the language of the contract, UM coverage applies to insureds who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles. Mid-Century argues that because the shooter was not the owner or operator of the vehicle, UM coverage does not apply. In Safeco, this Court adopted the definition of operator found in Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged as `1. one that produces a physical effect or engages himself in the mechanical aspect of any process or activity.' Safeco, 803 P.2d at 696. Applying the definition to this case, the shooter was the operator of the vehicle only if he exercised such coercive control over Cooper, the driver, that Cooper did not exercise his own will. In this way, the shooter would have actually controlled the movement of the car and, thus, the operator. The necessary evidentiary material to render summary judgment on this issue is absent. Even if the shooter was not exercising the necessary control over Cooper, UM coverage may nonetheless apply. It is undisputed that Cooper was the driver of the car. As the driver, Cooper was the operator of the vehicle, under our definition, if he was controlling the movement of the car. If Cooper could have reasonably foreseen, or had reason to believe, that by turning the car around to intercept the Byus car and driving in a manner where the shooter could act to harm Byus from the vehicle, then Cooper could be found to be legally liable for under the terms of the policy having used the car to facilitate the shooter's action. As with the other issues in this case, the facts are insufficient to determine as a matter of law whether the plaintiff is legally entitled to recover from Cooper. If a jury were to find the shooting was the proximate cause of Byus' death so as to sever any liability arising out of the use of the vehicle, then the plaintiff would not be legally entitled to recover from Cooper. However, a jury might infer Byus' death arose out of the use of the vehicle and the shooting did not break the causal connection. If so, the jury might also find Cooper legally liable for Byus' death.