Opinion ID: 2524514
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the accident arise out of the operation, maintenance, or use of Murphy's truck?

Text: The crux of the parties' dispute is whether the accident arose out of the operation, maintenance, or use of Murphy's truck. Shaw argues that Murphy used his truck to stalk her, trap her, surprise her, and shoot her. [15] State Farm argues, to the contrary, that it was mere coincidence that Murphy shot Shaw from his truck, and that Murphy's use of his truck thus had no legally significant causal connection to the shooting. In Criterion Insurance Co. v. Velthouse, we had occasion to address the question of when an injury arises out of the use of a motor vehicle. [16] Mack Velthouse, while horsing around with friends in his parked vehicle, picked up a loaded shotgun and accidentally shot James Harman. [17] Harman sought coverage under Velthouse's insurance policy, which extended coverage to bodily injury ... arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the owned auto. [18] We noted in Velthouse that there must be  some causal connection between the `use' of the vehicle and the injury. [19] Observing that there is an insufficient causal connection between the use of a vehicle and an injury where the vehicle is the mere situs of the injury-causing accident, [20] we approvingly cited those more recent cases which refuse[d] to interpret `use' as meaning other than use of the vehicle in its inherent status as a vehicle. [21] But we noted that most courts do not require proximate cause in its strict legal sense; rather they only require that the vehicle be more than the mere situs of the accident and that the use of the vehicle relate to its inherent use as a motor vehicle. [22] Because the accident could just as easily have occurred in a field or in the home as in Velthouse's parked truck, we held that it had no connection with the use of Velthouse's vehicle as a matter of law. [23] Our holding in Velthouse is paralleled by the Minnesota Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Continental Western Insurance Co. v. Klug. [24] In Klug, the court noted that [t]he legal issue of whether an accident arises out of the use ... of an automobile is a recurring question which defies a simple test. Instead, each case presenting such a question must, to a great degree, turn on the particular facts presented. [25] Russell Klug was driving home from work when Daniel Bahe, a coworker, pulled up beside him and shot him with a shotgun. [26] As Klug accelerated, Bahe fired a second shot, sped up and rammed Klug from behind, and chased Klug down the highway until Klug was able to duck onto an exit ramp and escape. [27] The Minnesota court set out three general factors to consider when addressing the issue of whether an accident arises out of the use of an automobile: (1) [T]he extent of causation between the automobile and the injury; [28] (2) [W]hether an act of independent significance occurred, breaking the causal link between `use' of the vehicle and the injuries inflicted; [29] and (3) [W]hat type of `use' of the automobile was involved. [30] The Minnesota Supreme Court eventually concluded that the requisite degree of causation existed, noting that Bahe had used his car to keep up with Klug for over two miles in order to try to shoot him, had not left his car before shooting Klug, and had used his car not only to maneuver himself into a position to harm Klug but also to maneuver Klug into a position from which Klug could be harmed. [31] Although the parties dispute the circumstances surrounding the shooting, Shaw's account of the attack resembles the Minnesota Supreme Court's description of the attack on Klug. According to Shaw, the shooting was simply the last act in Murphy's nightlong use of his truck to stalk her and trap her in a position where she could be harmed. Moreover, Shaw alleges that Murphy's attack required the use of his truck as a truck. Shaw insists that she would have kept driving if Murphy had not blocked her with his pickup, would not have waited for Murphy to approach her in her car had he been on foot, and would not have let Murphy into her home had he come to the door. According to State Farm's account, by contrast, Murphy was not stalking Shaw in his truck, but simply happened to be waiting in it for her to emerge from her home. State Farm also argues that Murphy's truck did not block Shaw from turning onto Independence Drive, but that she slowed of her own accord to talk to Murphy. Finally, State Farm insists that Murphy could just as easily have come up to Shaw's car on foot to shoot her while she waited to tell him to leave her alone and go home.