What is the test for putting anti-freeze in the pockets of a pedestrian?

In applying the approach of the court in Buckley v. Entz to this appeal, the commissioners find the appellant’s conduct comes within the statutory definition of “accident”. As stated previously, in order to be excluded from the definition, the conduct in question must be found to have been intended to cause damage or harm. There is no question that putting the gas line anti-freeze in the respondent’s pants pockets was deliberate. However, the commissioners accept the appellant’s testimony that there was no intention of harm to the respondent and that it never crossed his mind that the respondent’s pants might ignite.