Mason v. Celina Mut. Ins. Co., 21065

Decision Date23 January 1967
Docket NumberNo. 21065,21065
PartiesDonald R. MASON, Plaintiff in Error, v. The CELINA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant in Error.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Yegge, Hall & Shulenburg, Charles W. Johnson, Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Houtchens, Houtchens & Dooley, Gruley, for defendant in error.

SUTTON, Justice.

This is a third party action against Celina, an insurance company, on its liability policy which had insured the automobile of one Weathers.

It appears that Weathers' son Ricky, who was also a named insured, had driven Donald R. Mason, Francis Zimmerman and two other youths from the Greeley High School to target practice with some firearms. On returning to the school, Weathers parked the vehicle and went back to class with one of the boys. The other three youths remained in the automobile with Ricky's consent. Francis moved into the driver's seat with Donald on his right and the third person in the rear seat. While Donald was toying with a pistol, it accidentally discharged killing Francis. The vehicle was parked at the time, the engine was not in operation and no part of Donald's body struck the vehicle to occasion the discharge of the firearm. Fred J. Zimmerman, father of Francis, thereafter sued Donald Mason for the alleged wrongful death of his son. Mason then brought in Celina as a third party defendant contending that he was protected by Weathers' car insurance policy.

The sole question on this writ of error is whether an insurance policy provision that reads in pertinent part that it will pay on behalf of the insured sums he is legally obligated to pay as damages because of death sustained by any person 'caused by accident and arising out of the * * * use of the automobile' affords coverage to the guest of a named insured under the facts presented. The trial court held it did not, and we agree.

Assuming, Arguendo, that Mason comes within the definition of an insured and also that he was permissively 'using' the insured vehicle at the time of the tragedy, nevertheless, in our view the accident did not Arise out of a covered use of the automobile. Here no causal connection between the discharge of the pistol and the stopped vehicle was shown, as is required to afford coverage under such a policy. See Annot., 89 A.L.R.2d 150. Even though in a technical sense it might be argued that Donald was using the vehicle at the time the shot was fired, for he was sitting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • Continental Casualty Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 1, 1968
    ...Cir. 1960). Colorado has no decisions directly in point on the question but defendant urges that in a recent ruling, Mason v. Celina Mut. Ins. Co., 423 P.2d 24 (Colo.1967), the Colorado Supreme Court recognized a requirement that the use of the automobile be the proximate cause of the accid......
  • Viani v. Aetna Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • August 3, 1972
    ...They include: Azar v. Employers Cas. Co., 495 P.2d 554 (Colo.1972) (Pringle, C. J., and Kelley, J., dissenting); Mason v. Celina Mut. Ins. Co., 161 Colo. 442, 423 P.2d 24 (1967); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Bruecks, 179 Neb. 642, 139 N.W.2d 821 (1966); Brenner v. Aetna Ins. Co., 8 Ariz.App......
  • Cung La v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1992
    ...that the vehicle either "contributed to or was connected" to the shooting. Id. at 60, 495 P.2d at 555; see also Mason v. Celina Mut. Ins. Co., 161 Colo. 442, 423 P.2d 24 (1967) (injuries sustained from discharge of pistol did not "arise out of the use" of automobile pistol was in for purpos......
  • Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. McMichael
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • October 30, 1995
    ...731 P.2d at 135; see also Azar v. Employers Casualty Co., 178 Colo. 58, 61, 495 P.2d 554, 555 (1972); Mason v. Celina Mut. Ins. Co., 161 Colo. 442, 444, 423 P.2d 24, 25 (1967). We have applied this definition as an aid in interpreting a similar requirement contained in an uninsured motorist......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT