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

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

But that doesn't make the OP liable

It doesn't make the OP liable. it makes the OP's car insurance company liable since the vehicle which they cover was involved in an accident.

They will pay out as it costs too much to defend.
They then have the choice of getting these costs back from the individual that was directly responsible (passenger) but as that takes a lot of time and effort, they probably won't do that.

Welcome to reality mate.

tberry6686

Just read through this thread. Must be a wind up. Nobody can be this stupid. Can they ?

Iceweasel

DUTR wrote: »

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.

Very true - but the OP seems to be only interested in whether his No Claims is going to be affected.

I don't think he has grasped yet that the No Claims can be preserved as he seems to hope - but will make no difference if the basic premium is increased due to the risk factor - purely by dint of being involved in an incident.

This is a hard fact of life - it applies even to folks who are fault free but involved in an accident.

Altarf

DUTR wrote: »

That's not how it will work though, what if the OP had parked on a hill and their car had rolled into another or a person, could they say I was not in the car so I do not approve for you to extend their cover? They (the OP) does not have the choice of if their insurers approve or not, we would all disapprove of claims made against us and nothing would get settled.

In the random example you picked, the driver would only be liable if they had been negligent by failing to put the handbrake on correctly.

If they had, and despite the car being properly maintained the handbrake just failed, then no they are not liable and the insurance company will not pay out.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

The passenger has no legal requirement to be insured to be a passenger in a vehicle. It's the vehicle that has to have a minimum of third party insurance for circumstances exactly like this, and many others.

And again no. Try reading your insurance documents.

Retrogamer wrote: »

It doesn't make the OP liable. it makes the OP's car insurance company liable since the vehicle which they cover was involved in an accident.

The insurance company is not liable, because the OP is not liable, their passenger is.

Retrogamer wrote: »

They will pay out as it costs too much to defend.

Don't be silly. It doesn't work like that.

If they do receive a claim, they will write to the OP. If the OP says "not me, the passenger, and I am not extending my cover", why would the insurance company hand over money they didn't have to?

tberry6686 wrote: »

Just read through this thread. Must be a wind up. Nobody can be this stupid. Can they ?

You are correct, there are a lot of dumb people who don't understand how insurance works.

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

In the random example you picked, the driver would only be liable if they had been negligent by failing to put the handbrake on correctly.

If they had, and despite the car being properly maintained the handbrake just failed, then no they are not liable and the insurance company will not pay out.

snip

You are correct, there are a lot of dumb people who don't understand how insurance works.

This gets more amusing as it goes along :rotfl:

JustinR1979

We live in a blameless society all of a sudden!
Nevermind leaving it in gear, wheels turned to kerb....

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

Don't be silly. It doesn't work like that.

Don't be ignorant, of course it does.

My insurance company for my car decided to pay someone £1500 for non existent damage to their car. Even though i have evidence there was no damage, it would have cost my insurance company more money to dispute it in court, even if they did win.

Likewise, some insurance companies will take the same stance if a passenger opens a door and causes an accident.
Not every time, but sometimes. And if it does go to court, it won't always be ruled in the favour of the victim, but sometimes it will

Altarf wrote: »

If they do receive a claim, they will write to the OP. If the OP says "not me, the passenger, and I am not extending my cover", why would the insurance company hand over money they didn't have to?

Because a lot of the time, if it goes to court it costs more money to defend and sometimes the judge will rule in the favor of the third party.

Altarf

Retrogamer wrote: »

My insurance company for my car decided to pay someone £1500 for non existent damage to their car. Even though i have evidence there was no damage, it would have cost my insurance company more money to dispute it in court, even if they did win.

So was this a case where you denied being involved in the accident?

Altarf

DUTR wrote: »

This gets more amusing as it goes along :rotfl:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1242726

It does because people here don't seem to understand the concept of negligence.

Spicy_McHaggis

bery_451 wrote: »

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

Do you know how much an expert will charge to give you a speed from the cctv footage?



What's the speed limit at the location? I'd guess it's 30mph same as it is on the road outside.