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

Spicy_McHaggis

Altarf wrote: »

So what would you do?

Hand it over to your insurer, who have even fewer powers to obtain the passenger's details?

You're the one with all the answers here.

Jamie_Carter

Altarf wrote: »

So if the OP didn't cause or permit the door to be opened, the OP did not cause the accident.

Why would the OP's insurance pay a 3rd party for damage that the OP did not cause?

Because it's the vehicle that's insured, and it was part of that vehicle that was opened into the side of the other vehicle.


Why can't you understand something as simple as this?? Or are you just arguing for attention??

tykesi

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Or are you just arguing for attention??

This. No doubt about it.

Jamie_Carter

Altarf wrote: »

Nope, separate clause in insurance contracts specifically covering this situation, where the cover is not an option. For example in mine -

You are not covered for any of the following:
1. Use of the vehicle

When your vehicle:
- is being driven by or is in the charge of any person not allowed to do so under your Certificate of Insurance other than in an emergency as defined under Part 2 of the ‘Liability to others’ section;
- is being used other than for the purposes shown in your Certificate of Insurance
- is being driven with your permission by any person who you know has never held a driving licence; is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence; or is breaking the conditions of their driving licence

This exception does not apply if your vehicle is:
- being serviced or repaired by a member of the motor trade;
- stolen or taken away without your permission;
- being parked by a car-parking service.

What you don't seem to realise is that no matter what any companies terms and conditions say, they have to comply with the law. And the law has already been explained to you several times by an expert (rather than an armchair expert who just reads their own policy).

Jamie_Carter

Altarf wrote: »

Because the insurer considered that the driver was negligent by not putting the handbrake on!

What would the outcome have been if they had, but the handbrake cable snapped?

They would still have paid out.

Jamie_Carter

Altarf wrote: »

The thread where you failed to appreciate the importance of negligence to create a liability.

There doesn't need to be negligence by the policy holder.

Jamie_Carter

Altarf wrote: »

So what would you do?

Hand it over to your insurer, who have even fewer powers to obtain the passenger's details?

You claim off the insurance for the vehicle that made contact with your vehicle. That's how it works, like it or not.

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

So you negligently drove into a 3rd party and your insurance paid up, as you would expect.

Right here's the scenario.
I bump into car. There is no damage. I have evidence of no damage.
Insurance pay out for damage that doesn't exist.
I assume by your response you're fine with fraud?

Altarf wrote: »

Not exactly the same scenario as the OP, where the accident was not caused by them.

No, you're right it's not.
But i wasn't stating it was the same. I was stating my example to show that the insurance company will often pay out, even if the client is not liable because to prove their nonsense would cost more.

Perhaps you should try quoting and responding to what i said, and the context it was in

adouglasmhor

Altarf wrote: »

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

Said "wait a minute there is a car coming".

bery_451

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Said "wait a minute there is a car coming".

If the passenger was blind or passenger was a child then yes I am obliged to say that.


Passenger is in early 60's can still see and hear but obviously doesn't have sharp senses as us young ones. I believe if I went over to assist passenger getting out then I would have been killed by the speed of the other driver. Passenger doesn't need assistance as passenger not disabled.