Court Opinion

ID: 9591918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:08:47.616179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:12.982836
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, P. J.
(dissenting). The question to be answered in this appeal is whether or not the plaintiff was exercising physical control over the cherry picker at the time it was damaged. In my opinion it was not.
The owners of the machine were at all times advising plaintiff’s employee as to how the machine was to be unloaded. Plaintiff’s employee was in the process of carrying out the orders of the owners when the machine dropped. In my opinion physical control over the machine was being exercised by the owners during the operation since they were at all times directing the unloading. The fact that plaintiff’s wrecker was being used does not constitute the type of control over the machine which would make the policy’s exclusionary clause applicable.
In my opinion the exclusionary clause does not apply. The trial court’s judgment should be affirmed.