Topic: the injury must be foreseeably identifiable with the normal… · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #11995

8 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 32 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Kangas v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co..

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 Kangas v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Anchor
michctapp · 1975
green “the injury must be foreseeably identifiable with the normal use, maintenance and ownership of the vehicle.” 6
2 Greater Flint HMO v. Allstate Insurance
michctapp · 1988
green “the causal nexus between the accident and the car is established.” 5
3 Turner v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
mich · 1995
green “there must be some activity, with respect to the vehicle, which somehow contributes to the happening of the accident.” 5
4 Detroit Medical Center v. Progressive Michigan Insurance
michctapp · 2013
green “accident must arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a separate motor vehicle.” 4
5 Detroit Medical Center v. Progressive Michigan Insurance
michctapp · 2013
green “the no-fault act provides coverage for accidental bodily injury 'arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.” 4
6 Kangas v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
michctapp · 1975
green “while the automobile need not be the proximate cause of the injury, there still must be a causal connection between the injury sustained and the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile and which causal connection is more than incidental, fortuitous or but for.” 3
7 Jones v. Tronex Chemical Corp.
michctapp · 1983
green “the injury must be foreseeably identifiable with the normal use, maintenance and ownership of the vehicle.” 3
8 Ricciuti v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange
michctapp · 1980
neutral “incidentally or fortuitously related to the ownership, use, or maintenance of a motor vehicle.” 2

A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check