The Supreme Court of Canada today ruled in favour of two Canadian auto insurance companies. Central to both cases was whether the injuries the victims suffered were sufficiently connected to the use of motor vehicles.

In one case, Citadel General Assurance Co. v. Vytlingam, a Toronto motorist suffered grievous injuries when a boulder was dropped on his car.

In the Citadel Genearl Assurance Co. v. Vytlingam case, the 18-year-old student and his father were returning from Florida after spring break on March 14, 1999, when Todd Farmer and Anthony Raynor dropped the boulder from an overpass in North Carolina.

The trial judge ruled that the car was “central” to the transportation of the boulders and the escape of the men, putting the vehicle insurers on the hook for damages. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed in a 2-1 ruling.

The supreme court ruled today that the use of Farmer’s car to transport the boulder was too remote from the injuries Vytlingam suffered to say honestly that they were connected to the use and operation of Farmer’s car.

The court said that it would stretch insurance law and simple logic too far were Michael Vytlingam to be compensated.

In a the second case, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Herbison the court ruled against a man who was shot by a hunter who had mistaken him for a deer.

Harold Herbison and his nephew were walking across a farmer’s field to their hunting stand shortly before dawn on Nov. 2, 1999, when Fred Wolfe fired at them.

Wolfe was leaning against his vehicle and used his headlights to illuminate a flashing object on the other side of a darkened field when he shot Herbison.

”In this case, Wolfe was using his vehicle for transportation, which is its ordinary use,” Mr. Justice Binnie said for the 9-0 majority. ”However, in an act independent of the ownership, use or operation of his truck, Wolfe interrupted his motoring to start hunting, thereby breaking the chain of causation.