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

Altarf

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

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.

A future insurer may or may not consider that, but that has nothing to do with their current insurer and the accident the passenger caused.

Spicy_McHaggis

Altarf wrote: »

A future insurer may or may not consider that, but that has nothing to do with their current insurer and the accident the passenger caused.

Well it does because according to your source they may extend their cover to passengers.

But you feel free to pick and choose what bits fit your argument.

Altarf

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Well it does because according to your source they may extend their cover to passengers.

But you feel free to pick and choose what bits fit your argument.

It is you that is wandering off at a tangent because the reality of the situation doesn't fit what you wish it is.

The OP may choose to extend their cover to their passenger's actions. A future insurer's view of the OP's risk status does not permit a 3rd party to force the OP to make use of that option.

Spicy_McHaggis

Altarf wrote: »

It is you that is wandering off at a tangent because the reality of the situation doesn't fit what you wish it is.

The OP may choose to extend their cover to their passenger's actions. A future insurer's view of the OP's risk status does not permit a 3rd party to force the OP to make use of that option.

I simply pointed out they may carry that passenger again, who you agree is now a greater risk. If they are a greater risk and in the OPS car is he therefore not a greater risk because of them?

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

It is you that is wandering off at a tangent because the reality of the situation doesn't fit what you wish it is.

The OP may choose to extend their cover to their passenger's actions. A future insurer's view of the OP's risk status does not permit a 3rd party to force the OP to make use of that option.

Altarf, it's not that no reader does not see your possible get out clause, it's that in practice this get out does not come about.

In the case of the OP, the vehicle door is outside of the designated parking area.

Altarf

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

I simply pointed out they may carry that passenger again, who you agree is now a greater risk. If they are a greater risk and in the OPS car is he therefore not a greater risk because of them?

If I legally park my car somewhere and through your utter stupidity you drive into me, I am a greater risk because I happen to park where idiots drive.

Doesn't make me liable for you driving into me.

So what is your point?

Altarf

DUTR wrote: »

Altarf, it's not that no reader does not see your possible get out clause, it's that in practice this get out does not come about.

So you are conceding that I am correct, and that the OP is not liable and there insurance does not have to pay out, unless the OP wants them to. Something that is likely to happen in most circumstances.

DUTR wrote: »

In the case of the OP, the vehicle door is outside of the designated parking area.

Like every single parking space in the world. Are you suggesting that any driver using a parking space to stop and let passengers out is negligent?

Spicy_McHaggis

Altarf wrote: »

If I legally park my car somewhere and through your utter stupidity you drive into me, I am a greater risk because I happen to park where idiots drive.

Doesn't make me liable for you driving into me.

So what is your point?

The op is at greater risk as he transports idiots?

Altarf

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

The op is at greater risk as he transports idiots?

And how is this is relevant to their liability? (or lack of it).

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

So you are conceding that I am correct, and that the OP is not liable and there insurance does not have to pay out, unless the OP wants them to. Something that is likely to happen in most circumstances.



Like every single parking space in the world. Are you suggesting that any driver using a parking space to stop and let passengers out is negligent?

I won't be conceeding that you are correct as I do not believe that is the case, I admire your thinking outside the box, however in the case presented to us, in my mind it seems you are like the OP clutching at straws and just trying to dig yourself out of a hole.

As it happens I will look out for exiting passengers, (just as I would expect a front seat passenger to be extra eyes when making a right hand turn at some junctions (see other thread)), the best way to deal with collisions is to avoid them in the 1st place, I have used that section of the train station and walk through it often enough, if the speed limit along there is 5mph, then every user including the OP is guilty of exceeding that.
My replies are not to try and convince you to change your thoughts on the incident, as the intelligent person that you claim to be, you must acept, not everyone is going to have the same viewpoint as yourself regarding the incident .

Just as an aside I don't think the accident actually occured at all, and just that it's a possibilty that may happen until such time the works are completed and the lane will be used from the opposite direction as per plan.