We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Was involved in a car accident earlier today, whos liable?
Options
Comments
-
It is the driver that is insured for damage that they cause.
It is the policyholder and their vehicle that is insured to protect 3rd party.
Surprised you have not yet told this poster that he is not in the wrong.0 -
Positioned the vehicle at a place where an accident occured which led to a claim by a 3rd party against the policyholder.
You mean parked the car in a designated parking space for the passenger to get out.
The passenger opened the door into the path of the car, so there was no negligence by the driver.
No negligence means no liability, so the driver's insurance company can tell the 3rd party to whistle.
Is that so hard for people to comprehend?0 -
You mean parked the car in a designated parking space for the passenger to get out.
The passenger opened the door into the path of the car, so there was no negligence by the driver.
No negligence means no liability, so the driver's insurance company can tell the 3rd party to whistle.
Is that so hard for people to comprehend?
It's hard for you to comprehend it seems, the car may have been in a designated area, however parts of the car were in the path of passing traffic which may and did cause damage to a 3rd party.
They OP's insurers won't and have not told the other party to whistle, the OP has gone quiet and has never said what the other partty had said, (perhaps they are busy filling out the incident paperwork) .0 -
It's hard for you to comprehend it seems, the car may have been in a designated area, however parts of the car were in the path of passing traffic which may and did cause damage to a 3rd party.
But that wasn't due to the negligence of the driver.
No negligence = no liability.They OP's insurers won't and have not told the other party to whistle, the OP has gone quiet and has never said what the other partty had said, (perhaps they are busy filling out the incident paperwork) .
The insurers can if they want, unless the OP decides themselves to extend their cover to the passenger.
If they don't the insurers will not.0 -
It is very narrow there. I nearly had something similar getting out of a car myself. I was getting out the door didn't see anyone at all then someone came whizzing past and I had to get back in the car quick and the car door fortunately wasn't hit but I banged my arm on the door and it hurt like a !!!!! for days.
I would say unless they were massively speeding it's your passengers fault for not checking it was clear first.0 -
But that wasn't due to the negligence of the driver.
No negligence = no liability.
The insurers can if they want, unless the OP decides themselves to extend their cover to the passenger.
If they don't the insurers will not.
We have been over this in the thread, why would the underwriters not? They calculate from the premiums , that some of the income will go towards paying claims. So logistically I cannot see why they would venoumously defend their client for this incident, it may cost them more in admin than the price of the claim. If the OP has legal cover then that section may try and defend the claim, however all probabilities considered, the OP has proven themself a higher risk.0 -
We have been over this in the thread, why would the underwriters not?
Because they don't have to!They calculate from the premiums , that some of the income will go towards paying claims. So logistically I cannot see why they would venoumously defend their client for this incident,
Because then they make bigger profits.it may cost them more in admin than the price of the claim.
Which is something that would also be on the mind of the 3rd party's insurer. Since the driver was not negligent, the 3rd party's insurer would not want to spend money trying to sue when they know they would lose.If the OP has legal cover then that section may try and defend the claim,
If the 3rd party's insurer was stupid enough to try and sue the OP, and the OP would win.however all probabilities considered, the OP has proven themself a higher risk.
No. The passenger has shown themselves to be a higher risk, nothing at all to do with the driver.0 -
No. The passenger has shown themselves to be a higher risk, nothing at all to do with the driver.
That's a debatable point. The driver may carry that passenger again.
If you're a greater risk by having a crash in a place you go as a one off and will never return. Surely the same logic applies.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards