Court Opinion

ID: 9883365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:40:56.277733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:17.768210
License: Public Domain

FORSBERG, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the trial court. There is no connection between the injury and the use of this vehicle for transportation (Waseca). The injury is not a natural and reasonable consequence of use of the vehicle (Tlougan) nor is the vehicle an “active accessory” (Holm). Respondent’s observation that the vehicle’s presence in the driveway was fortuitous, has merit. The ice was both the necessary and sufficient “cause” and “in*302strumentality” of plaintiffs accident. Even Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hoekman, 359 N.W.2d 685 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet. for review denied (Minn. March 21, 1985), is distinguishable. There, at least the vehicle hit the garage door, which door later caused plaintiffs injury.