*1 question. peti- the offense in view of prove early
tioner’s re- failure
lease would danger
рublic, point. we need not this decide latter subject jurisdic-
Petitioner remains to the
tion of the Minnesota Corrections Board or
its successor. GALLE,
Jerry al., Appellants, et
EXCALIBUR INSURANCE
CO., Respondent. STANDFIELD, Respondent,
Robert
EXCALIBUR INSURANCE
CO., Appellant.
Nos.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
May 1982.
Lommen, Nelson, Sullivan & Cole Mark N. Stageberg, Minneapolis, for Excal- ibur Ins. Co. Converse,
Peterson Bell & L. Willard Anderson, Paul, Converse and David S. St. *2 65B.44, appellants respondent 81-264 and subd. 1 § states that “basic economic loss pro- benefits shall vide reimbursement for all losses suffered through injury arising out of maintenance ** or use of a motor vehicle OTIS, regarding material facts the three Justice. accidents dispute. Galle and Schroedl were These involve under appeals claims both engaged in loading and unloading (1980) Stat. of the Minnesota No- § heavy of stationary boxes inside Fault Act for vehicles.1 Insurance unloading while vehicles. Plaintiffs in case injured opened Standfield was 81-264, Jerry Schroedl, # Frank and rear door of his truck to unload his dolly at brought individually аgainst suit their em- delivery end of his The route. ployer’s insurer, no-fault Excalibur Insur- issue on appeal inju- is whether plaintiffs’ ance Co. cases were consolidated for ries arose out of “maintenance or use of court, hearing before district which a motor definition which is granted defendant motion Excalibur’s 65B.43, set forth in Minn.Stat. § summary judgment. Plaintiffs Galle and appeal from thаt order. Robert or use “Maintenance of a motor vehicle” Standfield, plaintiff in case # sued means maintenance or use of a to motor recover no-fault Summary benefits. favor, judgment granted vehicle, was in his including, as a incident to appeals. order defendant Excalibur vehicle, its or maintenance use as a occu- We affirm in both cases. intо, pying, entering alighting and it. Maintenance or use employed Schroedl were of a motor vehicle drivers, truck picking up delivering and (2) does not include conduct in the freight assigned on city routes. Schroedl loading unloading course of the vehi- injured 27,1976, on February his back cle unless the conduct occurs while occu- he attempted lift heavy to a wooden сrate pying, entering from it. from the floor his was truck. He stand- added). (emphasis ing parked inside the which was at the loading Recently loading we dock. Galle considered was November аttempted unloading to plaintiff clause when a was lift a heavy box. He standing too was dumpster struck by a which fell from the stationary trailer, inside a unloading cargo rear of a garbаge Krupenny v. West loading onto the dock. Robert Standfield Ins. Mutual was employed Advance United drive a (Minn. 1981). Although the mechanical un loading loading dumpster made Minn.Stat. freight at Twin City area locations. On 65B.43, 3 applicable, recovery subd. under 5,May 1976, he had finished his route and the Act was denied because parked loading his truck at the dock. He alight into went to the rear оf the trailer from the truck when the open the door and retrieve two wheel dumpster case, In fell. all three dolly from inside. As opened the door plaintiffs loading or un broke, cаble jamming the causing door and loading occupying activities and were Standfield injure to fall forward and him- they their vehicles at the time self. All three men have received workers’ injuries. suffered their require Thus both compensation benefits for lost income due 65B.43, ments 3(2) disabilities subd. sustained and now seek addi- tional compensation. no-fault been met. statutorily
1. The trailer
аof
truck is
defined as
2(c)
a vehicle under Minn.Stat. §
however,
believe,
Property
We do not
that all
enson v.
unloading injuries
(Minn.
incurred Casualty
contrast,
1979).
intoxicated,
while
into
uncon
necessarily compensable
exposure
from a
vehicle are
scious
who dies due to
overnight
under the No-Fault Act. The
must
sitting
when left
in car
has not
arise
also
out
the “maintenance or use of
from the use
injury arising
suffered an
a motor
Engel
vehicle as a vehicle.” Minn.Stat.
the automobile as
vehicle. See
*3
(1980).
3
hold
dinger
Casualty
To
otherwise
v. State Auto &
Underwrit
ers,
202,
cоverage
would lead to extreme and absurd
(1975).
306 Minn.
cidents intent givеn sons, must be effect there is no room requires that sections * * * * for construction. In interpreting a to 65B.71 be adopted effect the follow- statute, a court must the language construe ing purposes: so as legislative to effectuate the intent.” (1) To relieve severe economic Telephone Mankato Citizens Co. v. Commis- uncompensated tress of viсtims of auto- Taxation, sioner of 275 Minn. *; mobile accidents (1966) (citations omitted). encourage appropriate To medical rehabilitation treatment legislature clearly intended some automobile accident victim loading and unloading injuries to be com- *4 pensable limiting under the To correct imbalances Act. and abuses injuries by operation sрecifying acci- occur- automobile ring dent while a liability system tort into or from a motor vehicle arise (emphasis added). out of the “maintenance and use of a motor vеhicle,” the legislature has eliminated many injuries covered compen- KELLEY, J., no consid- took sation other schemes. eration or decision this matter. injuries While the Schroedl WAHL, (dissenting Justiсe in part). were standard automobile accident agree I majority opinion with the irrational, injury, neither were they bizarre encompassed within happenings in view of use of thе respectfully No-Fault Act but must As a matter of law these arose out sent from holding of the use of a and are motor vehicle com- Galle and encompassed. pensable under the Minnesota No-Fault clear- Act. sets ly “[mjaintenance out that * motor vehicle does not include con- TODD, (dissenting Justice in part). duct the course join I in the dissent Justice Wahl. the vеhicle unless conduct occurs while SCOTT, (dissenting part). Justice added.) it.” (Emphasis Recovery was de- in Krupenny nied because the join in I the dissent Justice Wahl. not occupying, alighting from or truck when the dumpster fell. Krupenny v. West Mutual Insurance Here, N.W.2d 133 “occupying” both
their trucks their occurred.
To hold that those did not arise out