Is an injury resulting from an accidental shot fired inside a vehicle a road accident? A Rimouski judge will have to decide whether the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ) must compensate a man injured by a gunshot during a hunting trip.
The judge recently rejected the request of a man who wanted to abort a lawsuit against him. A trial will therefore be necessary in this case.
The facts date back to October 18, 2021, during the moose hunting season, in the Rimouski region, in Bas-Saint-Laurent.
That day, Mathieu Roy was in a car driven by Simon Berger. A rifle is placed between the two men, at the front of the vehicle, can we read in documents filed in court.
No problems were reported until Simon Berger decided to pull his car to the side to check if the weapon was loaded. While handling the gun, a shot accidentally fires and the passenger, Mathieu Roy, receives a bullet of a caliber normally intended for big game in the left heel.
The SAAQ stands behind him
According to the documents presented in court, the latter first tried to obtain compensation from the SAAQ, responsible for applying the Motor Insurance Act. This law provides compensation for any victim of a road accident.
However, the SAAQ does not consider that the shooting of which Mathieu Roy was the victim is a road accident and therefore dismissed it. To the point where the state-owned company even sided with him in his efforts to obtain compensation for the driver who accidentally opened fire on him.
In fact, after being refused compensation from the SAAQ, Mathieu Roy turned to Simon Berger, from whom he is claiming $931,748 in damages, in addition to interest and additional compensation.
He replied by asking Judge Éric Hardy of the Superior Court to declare the lawsuit inadmissible since, as he claims, the accident for which he is responsible is a road accident.
A question to be decided
Simon Berger bases his claims on the fact that the Motor Insurance Act defines a road accident as any “injury caused by an automobile, its use or its load”.
As the rifle was inside his vehicle, it qualifies as part of the “loading” according to the man who therefore concludes that the injury suffered by Mathieu Roy “was caused by an automobile”.
At this stage of the proceedings, Judge Éric Hardy, however, rejected the request for dismissal. A trial will be necessary, he says, “to determine whether there is a plausible, logical and sufficiently close link between the use of a vehicle and the accident that occurred”.
The victim also underlines the “errors” committed by the driver in connection with the storage of his rifle, including the fact that he was driving in the car while it was loaded, “which is both dangerous and illegal”.
Mathieu Roy’s lawyer did not respond to an email sent by The Press. “As the matter is currently before the courts, we will refrain from commenting on the case publicly,” said a representative for defendant Simon Berger.