Where a driver engages in a course of harassing driving and a passenger throws an object at the victim as part of that harassment, the throwing is part of and incidental to the harassing driving, satisfying the definition of 'injury' in s 3(1) of the MAC Act. However, where a vehicle is merely used to transport a person to a location where they commit an independent criminal act (such as a drive-by shooting), the injury is not 'a result of' the driving. The distinction turns on whether the driver's fault relates to the actual use and operation of the vehicle as such, or merely to facilitating a dangerous act by a passenger unconnected with the driving. On costs, the reasonableness of refusing an offer of compromise does not alone justify denying indemnity costs under UCPR r 42.14(2); generally exceptional circumstances are required.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 28 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 28 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.