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

Altarf

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

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

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

Yes, BUT ONLY IF THE DRIVER WANTS THEM TO BE.

OnanTheBarbarian

RichardD1970

Altarf wrote: »

What could the car driver have done to stop the passenger opening the door.

What I and I assumed most people do if a passenger was going to get out into the flow of traffic.

Check my mirrors and say, "hold on sec there's a car coming" and let then know when it is clear.

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

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.




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

The OP will agree to the passenger's actions, the underwriters already factor in that a % of the premiums will be paid out, they won't try and defend it as it may well cost them more than the amount being defended, the OP may find their risk factor increased on their next renewal.

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

Yes, BUT ONLY IF THE DRIVER WANTS THEM TO BE.

They allow them to be, by the mere fact they are a passenger in the vehicle.

Altarf

RichardD1970 wrote: »

What I and I assumed most people do if a passenger was going to get out into the flow of traffic.

Check my mirrors and say, "hold on sec there's a car coming" and let then know when it is clear.

And if the passenger ignored you, would you still be negligent. Or would it be the passenger's fault?

DUTR wrote: »

The OP will agree to the passenger's actions

But they don't have to. And if they don't their insurance company will only be liable for the damage to the OP's car if the passenger can't/won't pay.

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

And if the passenger ignored you, would you still be negligent. Or would it be the passenger's fault?



But they don't have to. And if they don't their insurance company will only be liable for the damage to the OP's car if the passenger can't/won't pay.

They do have to though, you think the 3rp party's insurer's are going to just sit back until thier policy holders come to some agreement?
I guess the ball i already in motion from the 3rd party insurer and they will be glad that they have reported it to their insurer swiftly.

Altarf

DUTR wrote: »

They do have to though, you think the 3rp party's insurer's are going to just sit back until thier policy holders come to some agreement?
I guess the ball i already in motion from the 3rd party insurer and they will be glad that they have reported it to their insurer swiftly.

And they contact the OP's insurers, who say - "Nope, not our problem, the accident wasn't caused by the insured but their passenger, and the insured is not choosing to cover the passenger's actions. Thanks and goodbye".

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

And they contact the OP's insurers, who say - "Nope, not our problem, the accident wasn't caused by the insured but their passenger, and the insured is not choosing to cover the passenger's actions. Thanks and goodbye".

Not so though, you take insurance not to protect you, but to protect 3rd parties.

bazzyb

bery_451 wrote: »

plus there's CCTV that will prove the speeding.

CCTV is unlikely to either prove or disprove speeding.
In any event, the speed is largely irrelevant - why would it be ok to open the door onto a car, whatever speed it is doing?
The CCTV probably won't be released anyway.