Was involved in a car accident earlier today, whos liable?

Altarf

DUTR wrote: »

The passenger is covered by the driver's policy.

Only if the driver asks the insurance company to cover the actions of the passenger. If they don't they are not.

JustinR1979

Altarf wrote: »

No, the passenger is negligent, and the passenger has to pay for the damage to the other car, and the OP's car.

What if they're too young to work?
On benefits?
From abroad visiting?
An oap with no spare money for heat nevermind this?

Altarf

izzzzythedog wrote: »

if a chimney fell onto your car would you sue owner through the buildings contents or try to sue the wind

If the owner had not maintained the chimney, the owner, if they had, nobody.

izzzzythedog wrote: »

so OP`s accountable and thats the end of the matter

Wrong, the passenger is accountable, and that is the end of the matter.

Altarf

JustinR1979 wrote: »

What if they're too young to work?
On benefits?
From abroad visiting?
An oap with no spare money for heat nevermind this?

The car driver might be nice and ask their insurance to cover it, but in that case, the other car driver would have to whistle for it.

OnanTheBarbarian

Altarf wrote: »

So how is the driver negligent?

They drove to a marked parking space.
Stopped.
Waited for the passenger to get out.

What could the car driver have done to stop the passenger opening the door. Nothing, therefore the driver is not negligent.

Read my post again, all of the info is there. I really can't say any more. However, for the sake of completeness, section 149 of the Road Traffic Act =
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/149

149 Avoidance of certain agreements as to liability towards passengers.

(1)This section applies where a person uses a motor vehicle in circumstances such that under section 143 of this Act there is required to be in force in relation to his use of it such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

(2)If any other person is carried in or upon the vehicle while the user is so using it, any antecedent agreement or understanding between them (whether intended to be legally binding or not) shall be of no effect so far as it purports or might be held—

(a)to negative or restrict any such liability of the user in respect of persons carried in or upon the vehicle as is required by section 145 of this Act to be covered by a policy of insurance, or

(b)to impose any conditions with respect to the enforcement of any such liability of the user.

(3)The fact that a person so carried has willingly accepted as his the risk of negligence on the part of the user shall not be treated as negativing any such liability of the user.

(4)For the purposes of this section—

(a)references to a person being carried in or upon a vehicle include references to a person entering or getting on to, or alighting from, the vehicle, and

(b)the reference to an antecedent agreement is to one made at any time before the liability arose.

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

Only if the driver asks the insurance company to cover the actions of the passenger. If they don't they are not.

I'm afraid a claim by the 3rd party will be made against the OP's policy.
And the longer the OP is leaving it, the more chance the complaint will be upheld.

Altarf

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

Read my post again, all of the info is there. I really can't say any more. However, for the sake of completeness, section 149 of the Road Traffic Act =
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/149

Which is not relevant in the circumstances of this accident, as the section heading says, "Avoidance of certain agreements as to liability towards passengers", not liability for passengers actions.

DUTR wrote: »

I'm afraid a claim by the 3rd party will be made against the OP's policy.

The 3rd party can try, but will fail unless the OP agrees to cover the passenger's actions.

OnanTheBarbarian

OK. I'm out.

Believe what you like. Maybe you can join forces with the OP and assist him with his claim against the speeding third party.

Altarf

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

OK. I'm out.

So presumably you agree section 149 is not relevant.

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

Believe what you like. Maybe you can join forces with the OP and assist him with his claim against the speeding third party.

No, the OP should claim against their passenger.

OnanTheBarbarian

Altarf wrote: »

No, the OP should claim against their passenger.

Sorry, I can't help myself.....

And the passenger will then be indemnified by the insurance policy of the OP.

The passenger opening the door is deemed to be part of the "use" of the vehicle, which is on a public highway and subject to compulsory insurance requirements.

THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE OP WILL BE LIABLE TO SETTLE THE ACTION TAKEN AGAINST EITHER THE PASSENGER OR THE OP.