Volume. 9 Issue. 20 – June 25, 2025
Falling Truck Constitutes “Accident”
The Tribunal considers whether an Applicant, who was injured when his truck fell on him while he was making repairs, was involved in an “accident”, in accordance with the Schedule. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the theories espoused by the Respondent, given the lack of evidence in support of same.
Virtual Training – New Sessions Added!
Secure your seat for inHEALTH’s 2025 upcoming Virtual Training session!
- SABS Expedited: October 6-10, 2025
- BI Fundamentals: December 1-5, 2025
*Eligible Participants receive 9 Substantive – CPD hours upon course completion
Course details & register here +
The Mystery of the Falling Truck – In July 2024, the Applicant Croxall was injured when the pickup truck he had been working on fell on him. It was his submission that he had been repairing his truck and doing general maintenance when the truck suddenly fell. He indicated that the vehicle had been properly suspended on jacks, jack stands and cribbage, and that there was no way that the suspending equipment could have failed. At issue, in 24-011715 v Co-operators, was whether this incident satisfied the definition of “accident”.
Purpose Test
For their part, Co-operators submitted that Croxall has not met the purpose test, given that at the time of the accident, Croxall was not performing a standard repair or routine maintenance, such as changing his oil or replacing his brakes. Rather, he was replacing the upper control arms on the rear of his pick up truck, which was a specialized, structural repair of the vehicle. And, given how highly specialized and complex this task was, Co-operators argued that this was not “an ordinary and well-known activity to which automobiles are put.” In contrast, Croxall argued that performing maintenance on a vehicle is one of the ordinary, well-known activities to which automobiles are put. He further disputed Co-operators’ position that replacing control arms is a “highly specialized structural repair”, suggesting same to be akin to a “do it yourself” (DIY) task which is neither highly specialized nor costly.
The Tribunal did not agree with Co-operators that the replacement of the upper control arms is a major, specialized, structural repair of the truck, that cannot be considered to be a “standard repair” or maintenance. An article provided by Co-operators was not found to be compelling evidence that replacing upper control arms is such a major and specialized repair that it cannot be considered to be a standard repair., with the article itself noting that control arms are “not the most complicated” components on a vehicle. Preferred was a DIY article provided by Croxall, stating that replacing control arms is a necessary repair to restore a vehicle’s safe handling and nimble steering. The Tribunal agreed with Croxall that the DIY article lists needed tools that do not appear to be highly specialized or costly and provides instructions on how to do such a repair yourself. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the attempted repair of the vehicle was within the ordinary and well-known activities to which automobiles are put.
Intervening Act/Dominant Feature
Co-operators submitted that Croxall’s “testimony at his Examination Under Oath (“EUO”) establishes that there are only two possible explanations for how the truck fell: (i) the vehicle hoist or cribbing malfunctioned; or (ii) there was “mischief” or tampering with the vehicle or hoist, leading to the fall. According to the respondent, either of these scenarios are clearly an intervening act, independent of the vehicle’s use or operation, which breaks the chain of causation. Similarly, the respondent argues that if there was malfunctioning equipment or tampering, then the applicant’s repairing of the truck would not have been the dominant feature, or what “most directly caused the injury”.”
Croxall countered that there was no evidence that any of his equipment malfunctioned. He points to his EUO testimony where he indicated that there should have been no issue with the jack stands, cribbing and tertiary jack, that he had properly set everything up, and the type of jack he used had a failsafe. Therefore, absent evidence of any form of malfunction, there was no related intervening act. Further, with respect to the claim of mischief or assault, Croxall submitted simply that there was no evidence of an assault or tampering. The scenario was therefore similar to the court in Madore v. Intact, 2023 ONSC 11, in which “the claimant could not say what caused his fall from the roof of his camper trailer. However, the Court found that given the consumer-protection mandate of the Schedule, the fact that the claimant could not identify the cause of his fall, should not defeat his application.”
The Tribunal concluded that Croxall “has established that the use and operation of the vehicle, was the dominant feature or what most directly caused the injury. The evidence establishes that the applicant was repairing his truck, when his vehicle fell on him. I further find that the respondent has not established that there was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.” As for the suggestion that some of the suspending equipment must have malfunctioned, there had been no evidence led in this regard. The Tribunal was “persuaded by the applicant’s EUO testimony where he was consistent in saying that given how he had suspended the vehicle and the equipment he had used, he did not see how his truck could have fallen.”
Similarly, with respect to the suggestions regarding “tampering”, there was no evidence that the purported mischief was being investigated as an assault. Therefore, “the present matter is similar to the fact pattern in Madore, where we may not know what caused the applicant’s truck to fall. However, in my view, this does not mean that an “accident” as defined in s. 3(1) of the Schedule, did not take place. In the present matter, I find that it was the applicant’s repair of his vehicle that most directly caused the applicant’s injuries. Therefore, Croxall was involved in an “accident”, as defined in s. 3(1) of the Schedule, and he may proceed to a hearing on the substantive issues.
Access inHEALTH’s research resources through Live Chat and receive your OAR. Get It now!