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

Altarf

DUTR wrote: »

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

But the OP has no liability for the damage to the 3rd party car. That damage was caused by the actions of their passenger.

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

But the OP has no liability for the damage to the 3rd party car. That damage was caused by the actions of their passenger.

Using the OP's car.

Altarf

DUTR wrote: »

Using the OP's car.

But that doesn't make the OP liable.

Aretnap

Altarf wrote: »

But that doesn't make the OP liable.

No, but it does make his insurer's liable.

The OP doesn't get to decide that he doesn't want his insurers to pay for an accident caused by his passenger, any more than he gets to decide that they shouldn't pay for an accident caused by one of his named drivers.

OnanTheBarbarian

Altarf wrote: »

But that doesn't make the OP liable.

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

Bottom line is this incident comes from the "use" of the motor vehicle and the driver of said vehicle has a duty of care to ensure a passenger alighting from their vehicle does it without causing harm or damage & loss to others.

So the passenger is negligent for their breach of duty of care and so is the driver for their breach of duty of care = negligence.

The insurer covers that "use" and regardless of what you are trying to extrapolate from your own policy wording, your insurers would have to pick up the tab if a passenger in your vehicle did this.

And once more

Altarf

Aretnap wrote: »

No, but it does make his insurer's liable.

The insurer only liable for amounts to 3rd parties that the OP would have to pay. Again to quote from my insurance policy -

"This policy covers you for all amounts which you legally have to pay as a result of an accident involving your vehicle"

Aretnap wrote: »

The OP doesn't get to decide that he doesn't want his insurers to pay for an accident caused by his passenger, any more than he gets to decide that they shouldn't pay for an accident caused by one of his named drivers.

Strangely they do. Again to quote from my insurance policy -

"Cover provided for other people
If you give your permission, we will provide the same cover to the following people:
...
any person travelling in or getting into or out of your vehicle"

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

And once more

I thought that you had left for the day?

izzzzythedog

Altarf wrote: »

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



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

Nope your very very wrong , how many people must point it out before you get it into the gray matter ? the passenger caused the accident but given it was with an insured car then the car insurance must cover it . The owner is then free to seek damages from the passenger to recover the losses afterwards but either way its that car and therefore its insurance which will be accountable

Oh and dont lie , if a chimney fell onto your car you would seek damages from the owner . You wouldnt call it an act of god and face the cost without seeking redress from the owner . You would be on the phone to the owners insurance in miliseconds . From this you loose all credibility in what you have posted .

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

The insurer only liable for amounts to 3rd parties that the OP would have to pay. Again to quote from my insurance policy -

"This policy covers you for all amounts which you legally have to pay as a result of an accident involving your vehicle"



Strangely they do. Again to quote from my insurance policy -

"Cover provided for other people
If you give your permission, we will provide the same cover to the following people:
...
any person travelling in or getting into or out of your vehicle"



I thought that you had left for the day?

Nuff said.

Jamie_Carter

bery_451 wrote: »

Of course I have witnesses, 2 passengers in my car witness it plus there's CCTV that will prove the speeding.

The 2 passengers in your car are not independent witnesses. And I doubt that the CCTV will be calibrated to determine the speed of vehicles.

Lifes_Grand_Plan

Altarf wrote: »

From my insurance policy -

"This policy covers you for all amounts which you legally have to pay as a result of an accident involving your vehicle"

The OP doesn't legally have to pay.

How can something so obvious be made so complicated.

It was the OP's car that struck the passing vehicle therefore the accident did involve the insured vehicle, therefore the OP does legally have to pay, therefore the insurance policy will cover it.

The fact that the door was operated by a third party is neither here or there. If the OP wants to sue the passenger for the costs then he can try, but that doesn't change the facts.

Oh and OP, as for the costs - hard to say without seeing it but its very easy to underestimate these things. Someone once reversed into the passenger door of my wife's car whilst doing a three point turn so was low speed. She first said that she would pay cash for the repairs to stop it going through the insurance. When we had quotes done they gave us two options 1) was a filler and respray job, 2) was a completely new door skin.... we obviously went with option 2 as it was the only option that would return the car to the state it was before. Option 1 would have made it look the same as it did before but underneath it would always be a filled dent and when selling someone could detect it and as a result it would be worth less.

Anyway I think it cost about £800 for a new door skin and respray in the end. That was on a tiny little fiat back in our younger days so the bigger car you struck, possibly with electronics might cost more.