Who's to blame if a passenger opens a car door and causes damage?

techno79

Last night I was driving along and saw the car in front of me take evasive action as someone from a parked car opened a car door into it's path. There was no injuries or contact so it was extremely lucky but I imagine more than one person got a scare from that (including me).

It did get me thinking though. What happens in the following scenarios:
1) You are driving along and an adult passenger from a parked car opens the car door into your path and causes damage. Who is at fault, is it the passenger or the driver of the car?
2) Same as 1 but what if the passenger adult doesn't have insurance (e.g. they may not have a driving license)?
3) Same as 1 but what if the passenger was a child?
4) Same as 1 but what if the driver wasn't even in the vehicle?

Tyler_Du

I'm sure the driver of the car needs to be driving with sufficient care and attention (inc appropriate speed) to avoid such things.

techno79

Tyler_Durden_UK wrote: »

I'm sure the driver of the car needs to be driving with sufficient care and attention (inc appropriate speed) to avoid such things.

Which driver are you talking about? If it's the parked car then I already highlighted scenarios where the driver has not direct control (or may not even be in the vehicle).

If you are talking about the driver of the moving vehicle then sometimes there are narrow streets where you are forced within doors distance of parked cars. Even if driving at walking speed (which is far far slower than what even a "careful" driver would be going at), you'd struggle to avoid hitting a car door that was quickly opened into the path.

seatbeltnoob

the driver is reponsible for the actions of it's passengers so the parked car that pulled its doors out in front is reponsible. But this is ususally going to be your word against theirs scenario. The parked car will argue that the door was wide open therefore the only way to make an open and shut case is to have a dashcam.

Either way, you never get off from an accident better off than before the accident. Even on a non-fault accident your car will be repaired to a reasonable standard. But then the non-fault accident will affect your premiums for the next 5 years.

It is in your interest to avoid such collisions if you can.

techno79

seatbeltnoob wrote: »

the driver is reponsible for the actions of it's passengers so the parked car that pulled its doors out in front is reponsible. But this is ususally going to be your word against theirs scenario. The parked car will argue that the door was wide open therefore the only way to make an open and shut case is to have a dashcam.

This is true, and I've been using dashcams for over 8 years now (after being convinced by it from an episode of The Gadget Show). For the past 2 years, I've been using two (front and rear view).

seatbeltnoob wrote: »

Either way, you never get off from an accident better off than before the accident. Even on a non-fault accident your car will be repaired to a reasonable standard. But then the non-fault accident will affect your premiums for the next 5 years. It is in your interest to avoid such collisions if you can.

This is very true. You will always be worse off and I like to think that I'm as careful as I can be. But even with the most careful of drives, accidents will still happen and some cannot be avoided (unless you can see into the future).

PasturesNew

I had it happen once, I was driving past and a passenger threw their door open and dented my car just behind the wheel arch.

On balance, although annoying (especially as I had a nearly new car), I decided to live with it rather than go through all the hassle of claiming and proving and arguing etc.

Joe_Horner

PasturesNew wrote: »

I had it happen once, I was driving past and a passenger threw their door open and dented my car just behind the wheel arch.

On balance, although annoying (especially as I had a nearly new car), I decided to live with it rather than go through all the hassle of claiming and proving and arguing etc.

Cue the "but you should have told them anyway" brigade...

unholyangel

seatbeltnoob wrote: »

the driver is reponsible for the actions of it's passengers so the parked car that pulled its doors out in front is reponsible. But this is ususally going to be your word against theirs scenario. The parked car will argue that the door was wide open therefore the only way to make an open and shut case is to have a dashcam.

Either way, you never get off from an accident better off than before the accident. Even on a non-fault accident your car will be repaired to a reasonable standard. But then the non-fault accident will affect your premiums for the next 5 years.

It is in your interest to avoid such collisions if you can.

No, they're not - just because they have insurance (which may not even offer cover for third party liability of passengers), that doesn't make them liable/responsible. They may however be liable if they were negligent themselves.

Brown v Roberts & Edelman v Harcott (although the former is the better example given its the queens bench).

GothicStirling

Don't people by the rubber guards that you clip on to the door anymore?

techno79

GothicStirling wrote: »

Don't people by the rubber guards that you clip on to the door anymore?

Not quite sure how a small rubber guard will do anything when a door is opened full swing into a moving 30mph car.

Johno100

unholyangel wrote: »

No, they're not - just because they have insurance (which may not even offer cover for third party liability of passengers), that doesn't make them liable/responsible. They may however be liable if they were negligent themselves.

Brown v Roberts & Edelman v Harcott (although the former is the better example given its the queens bench).

On the potential criminal liability side of things, if this is anything to go by then the driver may be liable for the action of his/her passenger(s)

A taxi driver has been fined £300 after his passenger door pushed a cyclist into the path of a van and killed him.

Sam Boulton passed away on his 26th birthday from head and chest injuries after he was hit by a drink driver.

The 56-year-old was found guilty of permitting a passenger to open a vehicle ‘so as to injure or endanger a person’ when he appeared at Loughborough magistrates’ court on Monday.

He was ordered to pay a £300 fine, £635 prosecution costs and £30 victim surcharge.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/06/taxi-driver-fined-300-after-passenger-door-pushed-cyclist-into-path-of-drink-driver-6689105/