In Brief
The legal representatives of a deceased teacher claimed compensation after a stone from a blasting operation struck him. A tractor's battery was used to charge explosives for digging a well on the respondent's agricultural land. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held it was a vehicular accident and awarded compensation. The High Court reversed, holding the use of the battery did not constitute 'use of the motor vehicle'. The Supreme Court held that while the vehicle was stationary, its battery was still integral to it, and its use for agricultural irrigation work constituted use within Section 165. The Court affirmed the accident arose from vehicle use but remitted the liability question (insurer vs. owner) to the High Court for analysis of the insurance policy.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.