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

Jamie_Carter

bery_451 wrote: »

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

And if your passenger doesn't have the sense or ability to check that the coast is clear, and you don't want a claim against your insurance, then you are also obliged to say that.

bery_451 wrote: »

Passenger is in early 60's can still see and hear but obviously doesn't have sharp senses as us young ones.

The government thinks that people can still be operational firefighters up to 60 years old.

bery_451 wrote: »

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.

You mean the car that you know was speeding, but neither you or your passenger saw????

DTDfanBoy

Bery Bery Bery

bery_451

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

And if your passenger doesn't have the sense or ability to check that the coast is clear, and you don't want a claim against your insurance, then you are also obliged to say that.




The government thinks that people can still be operational firefighters up to 60 years old.





You mean the car that you know was speeding, but neither you or your passenger saw????

The passenger did look over shoulder and seen the other driver car way back back so passenger thought exiting the vehicle is possible before other driver car caught up because passenger had faith drivers will follow the 5mph speed limit but its seems the speed of the driver that is quicker than the passenger exiting.


You have to realise in a train station drop and go area 99% of passengers are in a rush and hence the 5mph speed limit is there because the building designers knew passengers are rushing to exit vehicles and that speed limit prevents accidents.

bery_451

To all those that are blaming me just imagine your relative was in a rush and it is natural that when someone is in a rush their awareness decreases. Your relative did the same like my passenger did but exit the vehicle when the collision happened and your relative died from being run over and it was found out driver was doing double-treble the 5mph speed limit. Are you gonna pat the other driver on the back and say your speed is not at fault?

izzzzythedog

bery_451 wrote: »

To all those that are blaming me just imagine your relative was in a rush and it is natural that when someone is in a rush their awareness decreases. Your relative did the same like my passenger did but exit the vehicle when the collision happened and your relative died from being run over and it was found out driver was doing double-treble the 5mph speed limit. Are you gonna pat the other driver on the back and say your speed is not at fault?

Correct , speeding may be against the law but stupidity isnt which is just as well otherwise you would be on a charge

But either way the cars insurance is accountable that means you regardless of the spin you place on it . Make it easy on yourself or not , its no skin off my fore

antrobus

There is a previous thread here that deals with a similar situation;
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2197259

That makes reference to the case of Andrew Howe v (1) Wayne Houlton (2) Marshall Barry Ltd (3) Norwich Union Insurance Ltd (2009) which is reported here; http://www.blmlaw.com/2301/7095/objects/blm-e-bulletin-topic/case-of-the-week.html

Supposedly the leading case on the subject is Brown v Roberts 1965 where a pedestrian who was hit by a door opened by a passenger lost their case against the driver.

See; http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=19033

(That's from Taxi Driver Online. Taxi drivers are naturally very interested in the exact liability arising from passengers who open doors.)

I'm not entirely convinced by some of the arguments have been presented so far on this thread. But then, what do I know?:)

This article here might also be of interest
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/201401061.pdf

shaun_from_Africa

bery_451 wrote: »

The passenger did look over shoulder and seen the other driver car way back back so passenger thought exiting the vehicle is possible before other driver car caught up because passenger had faith drivers will follow the 5mph speed limit but its seems the speed of the driver that is quicker than the passenger exiting.

So this passenger who looked over their shoulder and saw the other vehicle was "way back", would this be the same passenger who you state:

bery_451 wrote: »

obviously doesn't have sharp senses as us young ones.

As your passenger's senses were not sharp, have you considered the possibility that the approaching vehicle was closer than your passenger thought it was?

Jamie_Carter

bery_451 wrote: »

The passenger did look over shoulder and seen the other driver car way back back so passenger thought exiting the vehicle is possible before other driver car caught up because passenger had faith drivers will follow the 5mph speed limit but its seems the speed of the driver that is quicker than the passenger exiting.

So you are now saying that your passenger deliberately opened the door in front of an approaching vehicle?? You are making this up as you go along, and digging a deeper hole in the process.

bery_451 wrote: »

You have to realise in a train station drop and go area 99% of passengers are in a rush and hence the 5mph speed limit is there because the building designers knew passengers are rushing to exit vehicles and that speed limit prevents accidents.

You have no proof of the speed. After all you are now saying that it was only your passenger (who obviously can't judge speed), who saw the approaching vehicle.

Spicy_McHaggis

bery_451 wrote: »

To all those that are blaming me just imagine your relative was in a rush and it is natural that when someone is in a rush their awareness decreases. Your relative did the same like my passenger did but exit the vehicle when the collision happened and your relative died from being run over and it was found out driver was doing double-treble the 5mph speed limit. Are you gonna pat the other driver on the back and say your speed is not at fault?

Why did you allow your passenger to open the door onto this speeding vehicle?

Altarf

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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.

It is the driver that is insured for damage that they cause.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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).

And what "law" is this.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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

Yes there does.

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Why did you allow your passenger to open the door onto this speeding vehicle?

And how does the driver stop them.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

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

And the passenger opens the door anyway.