Motorist in Two Separate Collisions in One Accident
In Johnson v. Hunter, 2010 WL 98703 (S.C.App.), Johnson was driving on the highway and Hunter was traveling behind him. Dominguez was traveling the opposite direction on the highway when his vehicle crossed the center line into the path of Johnson's truck. Although Johnson swerved to avoid Dominguez, Dominguez's truck still hit him, turning Johnson's truck sideways in the road. Johnson's airbags deployed and he unbuckled his seatbelt to exit the vehicle, but before he could exit he was hit a second time, this time by Hunter, causing Johnson serious injury.
Johnson sued Hunter for negligence seeking to recover under his own underinsured motorist coverage. The trial court found the events constituted one accident, limiting Johnson's recovery to the maximum allowed for “each accident” under his policy.
Johnson appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in finding a single accident occurred. The Court of Appeals of South Carolina disagreed, holding that as a matter of first impression evidence supported finding that Johnson was involved in a single accident
In its decision, the court stated that South Carolina had not addressed the precise issue of what constituted a single accident in the context of the policy. Other jurisdictions had, however, and most courts had concluded that the question of whether one or more accidents occurred should be evaluated under the causation theory. Because the trial court had employed this theory's analysis and neither party appealed that ruling, so too would the appeals court employ it.
Under the cause approach, the court explained, the insured's single act of negligence is considered the occurrence from which all claims flow. Courts applying this theory uniformly find a single accident “if cause and result are so simultaneous or so closely linked in time and space as to be considered by the average person as one event.” When one negligent act or omission is the sole proximate cause, there is but one accident, even though there are several resultant injuries or losses. Taken in its usual sense, the word “accident” means a single, sudden, unintentional occurrence and is used to describe the event, no matter how many persons or things are involved. And, an accident or occurrence in this context should be viewed from the perspective of cause and not effect.
Having considered the rationale behind the causation theory and its application in other cases, the court turned to its application in the instant case. Johnson contended two distinct accidents occurred in this case because the time between the first and second impacts was “at least one and one-half to two minutes.” He maintained the trial court erred in finding one accident without even making a determination about exactly how much time passed between the two collisions.
The court, however, explained that Johnson placed too much emphasis on the timing of the impacts. Most cases discussing the causation theory did not rely solely on the timing of events in determining whether or not one or two accidents occurred. While timing was frequently a part of the analysis, the courts place the most emphasis on whether or not one source of negligence set all the subsequent events in motion. In the case at hand, the issue involved the reasonableness of a driver's actions and his failure to take corrective measures after an accident. The time span between collisions was just one factor that must be taken into account.
Further, the question of whether a single accident occurred under the causation theory should turn on the particular facts of each case, and the court should look at all the circumstances, including timing, in its analysis.
Looking at the particular facts of this case, the court explained that the evidence supported finding the collisions resulted from Dominguez's single act of negligence. Under the causation theory, the evidence supported finding a minimal amount of time passed between the impacts and the second impact was not due to Hunter's own independent negligence but was a foreseeable consequence of Dominguez's negligent conduct. Consequently, the court affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
Editor's Note: Most similar cases from other jurisdictions discuss “accident” in the context of a liability policy. Here we see an example of a court applying the same rationale behind the causation theory when considering UIM coverage.