Shooting of Person by Driver from His Parked Car Was Not an “Accident Involving a Vehicle”
September 30, 2013 |A federal district court in Alabama has ruled that a driver sitting in his parked car who shot a person walking toward him was not entitled to a defense or indemnity from his automobile insurance carrier in the lawsuit the victim brought against the driver.
The Case
After Dale Christian stopped his car in a parking lot, Douglas Larkin parked behind him, exited his vehicle, and walked towards him. Christian shot him in the stomach with a gun he had in the car. Christian pled guilty to Third Degree Assault–Reckless, a crime that requires a mens rea of recklessness.
Larkin sued Christian, who asked his automobile insurance carrier to defend. The insurer brought a declaratory judgment action and moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Decision
The court granted the insurer’s motion.
It found that the underlying events as alleged in Larkin’s suit did not constitute an “accident involving a vehicle.”
The court explained that when Christian pled guilty, he admitted that he was aware of the risk of injury to Larkin and that he consciously had disregarded the risk when he shot him. Because Christian, by his own admission, was aware of the risk to Larkin when he shot him, the resulting injury was not “unforeseen” and, therefore, it was not an “accident.”
The court observed that the only admissible evidence that Christian had put forth was that he could not remember the events surrounding the shooting and that he had not fired the gun very many times. The court found this “insufficient” to enable a reasonable juror to determine that the shooting was an accident.
The court added that Christian’s criminal act intervened to break any causal chain between the automobile and the injury, making Christian’s car the mere situs of the incident. It held, therefore, that Larkin’s injuries were not caused by an accident that involved a vehicle.
Accordingly, the court ruled that the shooting did not trigger the insurer’s duty to defend its insured. It concluded by observing that the insurer also had no duty to indemnify Christian.
The case is State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Christian, No. 11-cv-03781-LSC (N.D. Ala. Sept. 23, 2013).
