Court Opinion

ID: 9685502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:44:38.3295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:07.258252
License: Public Domain

FLEMING, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the district court’s conclusion that Konchal’s vehicle was the mere situs of her injury rather than an active accessory. As the majority notes, active accessory means that “the accident happened because the vehicle’s use was actively connected with the injury.” Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 352 N.W.2d 798, 799 (Minn.App.1984) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
Here, it is difficult to see how the vehicle’s use was actively connected with the injury. The motion causing Konchal’s injury is one that can be associated with numerous daily *231activities having nothing to do with motoring — such as passing a tray of food at the dinner table or even turning over in bed. Moreover, the no-fault statute only applies in the event of an “accident causing injury.” Minn.Stat. § 65B.46, subd. 1 (1990). Kon-chal’s injury was not caused by any “accident,” but rather by her movement of turning to open the car door.
Finally, Konchal fails to meet the third prong of the use of a motor vehicle test. Reaching to open a car’s door handle simply does not constitute a risk “closely associated with motoring.”