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

Spicy_McHaggis

Altarf wrote: »

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

Because we all know he'll fold and allow the passenger to be covered.

Altarf

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Because we all know he'll fold and allow the passenger to be covered.

So I am glad that you also agree that the OP is not liable, and it is the OP's choice if they want to extend their cover.

DUTR wrote: »

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.

No clutching at straws, standing on firm ground, not floundering away like you.

DUTR wrote: »

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.

I would agree with you, 5mph is not a realistic speed limit, but it is an indication to drivers to be careful and observant.

DUTR wrote: »

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 .

The question is not the viewpoint on the incident, but the situation of whether a driver of a legally parked car is responsible for an accident caused by their passenger opening their door.

The driver is not. That is not a matter of opinion, that is a fact.

uknick

I appreciate I may have missed this being quoted in the thread, as I did speed read a lot of it, but in response to Altarf quoting his policy, my policy explicitly covers a passenger in my car causing damage to 3rd party property whilst "...travelling in or getting in or out the car...". No mention is made about the policy holder giving permission for them to be covered.

If Altarf's policy is different then so be it.

I read mine after seeing this thread, not because I've too much time on my hands (or maybe I do ) but I regularly transport a passenger who has never driven and has no idea about checking mirrors before they get out of the car. Whilst I do check the mirrors and let them know it is clear they have, on rare occasions, got bolshy and started to open the door saying they don't need to be told how to get out of a car.

DUTR

Altarf wrote: »

So I am glad that you also agree that the OP is not liable, and it is the OP's choice if they want to extend their cover.

Where was that posted? It has already been stated in a debatable way that I do not agree with your beliefs on the situation, debate as an adult .

No clutching at straws, standing on firm ground, not floundering away like you.

To my reading you are clutching at straws, if in your mind you are not so it be.


I would agree with you, 5mph is not a realistic speed limit, but it is an indication to drivers to be careful and observant.

And that extends to the OP and their passengers.

The question is not the viewpoint on the incident, but the situation of whether a driver of a legally parked car is responsible for an accident caused by their passenger opening their door.

The driver is not. That is not a matter of opinion, that is a fact.

The opening post was the question about the incident, a car parked with bodywork in the path of passing vehicles is not deemed as parking legally, (I'm sure you will return to the highway code or similar to verify that.) .

bery_451

I think we should end this now and let the CCTV be the judge. CCTV never lies. All I am saying is passenger should not accept full 100% liability if that other driver is doing over 5mph or driving too close to parked cars. That depends on CCTV.


This thread is 15 pages which clearly shows that it is not a shut and close case and instead its more of a debate with no clear answer.


We can keep on debating but CCTV is the ultimate final decision.

DUTR

bery_451 wrote: »

I think we should end this now and let the CCTV be the judge. CCTV never lies. All I am saying is passenger should not accept full 100% liability if that other driver is doing over 5mph or driving too close to parked cars. That depends on CCTV.


This thread is 15 pages which clearly shows that it is not a shut and close case and instead its more of a debate with no clear answer.


We can keep on debating but CCTV is the ultimate final decision.

It should have ended before it started, you claim your vehicle was involved in an accident, there is information missing when asked. I'm surprised the insurance companies have not got in touch with either or both of you by now, the other party seemed to have said nothing to you at the the time of exchanging details, you wish to pay for the damage even though you think you are not liable.
Lots missing and it's taking an awful long time to start to resolve, lengthened now by you going to seek CCTV footage (which you may not get for reasons debated earlier in the thread).

Spicy_McHaggis

bery_451 wrote: »

I think we should end this now and let the CCTV be the judge. CCTV never lies. All I am saying is passenger should not accept full 100% liability if that other driver is doing over 5mph or driving too close to parked cars. That depends on CCTV.


This thread is 15 pages which clearly shows that it is not a shut and close case and instead its more of a debate with no clear answer.


We can keep on debating but CCTV is the ultimate final decision.

I asked you earlier and you declined to answer about who you intended to use as your expert witness for the speed. I also pointed out several times about the 5mph not being enforceable.

I'd guess the damage will be less than the cost of an expert witness and will not remove liability from your passenger.

So ask yourself this question, will the insurance company fight this or take the cheapest option?

Iceweasel

bery_451 wrote: »

CCTV never lies.

CCTV is the ultimate final decision.

Oh dear - you have a lot to learn.

Good luck with obtaining CCTV - you obviously have no concept of the difficulty and cost involved in getting it analysed - even if they will release it.

Good luck with claiming the costs from your passenger - perhaps Altarf will help you.

Good luck with getting the 3rd party's car repaired at a cost less than the increase in your premiums.

Good luck with keeping your No Claims 'Bonus'.

Good luck in not getting an increase in the cost of your insurance next year irrespective of any No Claims retention.

Good luck with getting your own car fixed.

Still no estimates for getting either car repaired yet?

There is so much missing or held-back information - but please come back and tell us how you get on with this.

I promise there will be no "I told you so." - from me at any rate.

We all need to know the outcome of this.

andygb

Here is my view on it.
The OP stopped the car and his passenger opened a door without taking due care, and the door was struck by a passing car.
As we have seen from the location, if a car door was opened fully, then a passing car would definitely hit it.
As to the damage, well a smallish/medium car Clio/Punto for instance weighs around 1000 KG - about a ton. if one of those hit a car door at 5MPH I would expect significant damage to both vehicles - broken o/s headlight/crushed front wing on the passing car, and significant damage to the door of the parked car, including damage to the base of the "A" pillar.
The OP is in the wrong, because the driver of the passing car may well have had no time to react to the coincidental opening of the OP's passenger door.

Jamie_Carter

Altarf wrote: »

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

It is the policyholder and the insured vehicle.

Altarf wrote: »

And what "law" is this.

Ask the expert who quoted the law earlier in the thread.

Altarf wrote: »

Yes there does.

You really don't know how insurance works do you? This would explain all your posts in this thread.


If you handbrake fails through no fault of your own, and the vehicle rolls down a hill causing loss to a third party, then your insurance will pay out to that third party with no negligence by the policyholder. It's not rocket science.

Altarf wrote: »

And how does the driver stop them.

By saying 'don't open the door, their is a car approaching'.

Altarf wrote: »

And the passenger opens the door anyway.

They shout, reach over and grab the door handle, or don't let someone who doesn't have the sense to understand simple commands to sit next to a door without a child proof lock.


The driver is responsible for their vehicle and load, and making sure that no part of their load or vehicle caused any loss or distress to a third party.