Court Opinion

ID: 9634811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:24:59.632784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:01.416470
License: Public Domain

VERNIERO, J.,
dissenting.
In the everyday, commonly understood sense of things, plaintiff did not “occupy” the insured vehicle at the time of his unfortunate accident. To the extent that the cases cited by the majority justify a contrary conclusion, they should be limited to then-unique facts or overruled. Those cases require courts to engage in a form of line drawing that has no discernible boundaries. I acknowledge that the Court’s disposition may have the salutary effect of reinstating this one plaintiffs claim. In the last analysis, however, today’s holding reflects a missed opportunity to infuse a measure of common sense into an unpredictable area of our law. I respectfully dissent.
For reversal and remand — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, LaVECCHIA, and ZAZZALI — 6.
For dissent — Justice VERNIERO — 1.