Court Opinion

ID: 9883795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:19:55.563728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:31.170075
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, Paul H., Justice
(concurring).
I concur with the majority’s reasoning and result; nevertheless, I write separately because I believe it important to acknowledge how tempting it is to agree with the dissent’s result given the troublesome facts in this case. But bad facts often make bad law.
The dissent concludes that Dougherty’s injuries are not covered under Minnesota’s No-Fault Act because her injuries were not caused by the “normal incidents of motoring.” Because both the majority and dissent acknowledge that injuries occurring when a motor vehicle is stranded in dangerous conditions can give rise to no-fault benefits, the only possible basis for *747the dissent’s conclusion that the injuries did not arise out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle is that -Dougherty was intoxicated — bad facts. Concluding, as the dissent does, that Dougherty’s injuries are unrelated .to the normal incidents of motoring would jeopardize legitimate claims to no-fault benefits when Minnesota motorists are stranded in dangerous conditions — bad law. Our No-Fault Act does not contemplate fault and intoxication is clearly related to fault. While Dougherty’s intoxication should not be condoned, here it is simply not relevant to the No-Fault Act. What is relevant is that Dough-erty’s use of her vehicle placed her in a dangerous situation — stranded and exposed to the bitter cold — and she was injured while removing herself from that dangerous situation.