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

Car_54

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

No, you'd need to prove the driver permitted the offence. They may not even be in the car.

If he's not in the car, then is he the driver?

Aretnap

Car_54 wrote: »

If he's not in the car, then is he the driver?

Maybe.

There was a case a few years ago (can't remember the name) where a driver got out of the car, to post a letter or pop to a shop or something like that. While he was out of the car his passenger (a child, IIRC) released the handbrake, causing a minor accident. He came back to the car, drove off, and was prosecuted for failure to stop/report the accident. He argued that as he wasn't in the car at the time of the accident he could not have been "the driver" so he had no duty to stop/report. The High Court found that as it was only a brief stop he was still "the driver" for the purposes of RTA section 170, and he should have provided his details or reported the accident.

Negligence and permitting both require some sort of action, or at least failure to act, on the part of the driver. If, say, the driver tells his passenger "don't open your door yet" and the passenger opens it anyway, (a) in what sense has the driver "permitted" the passenger to open the door and (b) what are you suggesting that a careful driver would have done differently (a key component of negligence)?

Warwick_Hunt

Car_54 wrote: »

If he's not in the car, then is he the driver?

You'd still need to prove he permitted the offence if he was.

unholyangel

Car_54 wrote: »

But the driver has commited a criminal offence by permitting the passenger to open the door. Doesn't that suggest that the driver is always negligent?

The brown v roberts case I mentioned provides an example of when the driver may not be held liable - such as when the passenger opens the door instantaneously.

Although the criminal offence is only for endangering/injuring a person - not for property damage.

Warwick_Hunt

unholyangel wrote: »

The brown v roberts case I mentioned provides an example of when the driver may not be held liable - such as when the passenger opens the door instantaneously.

Although the criminal offence is only for endangering/injuring a person - not for property damage.

The wording on a fixed penalty notice was likely to cause danger. So damage to property would be covered.

sheramber

Strider590 wrote: »

The car should not have been parked facing oncoming cars and the driver should always make sure it's safe for passengers to exit the vehicle.

Now I know what's going to happen, someone is going to pick that apart so:

The highway code makes the distinction of not parking at night facing the wrong way, but this is because:
a) there are no reflectors of the front of the vehicle
b) typical headlight beam is raised to the left meaning it would dazzle oncoming drivers
c) pulling out from parked, the driver would not be able to see oncoming cars until their car was actually half way out.

It's safe to assume that even if you park in daylight, once it becomes dark your actually parked illegally, therefore drivers shouldn't really do it in the first place.

Aside from the parking legality, there have also been cases where cyclists in cycle lanes have been hit by passengers opening car doors and in those cases the driver was held accountable.

Who said the car was parked facing on coming traffic.

`It could be the rear seat passenger, sitting behind the driver, that opens the door into the road..

unholyangel

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

The wording on a fixed penalty notice was likely to cause danger. So damage to property would be covered.

The wording on a fixed penalty notice is neither here nor there, its the wording of the legislation that matters and that wording is:

Opening of doors

105. No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.

As I said, damage to property does not create criminal liability, only a civil one.

Warwick_Hunt

unholyangel wrote: »

As I said, damage to property does not create criminal liability, only a civil one.

Yes, but by opening the door you endanger the driver of the passing vehicle so it fits your criminal legislation.

unholyangel

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

Yes, but by opening the door you endanger the driver of the passing vehicle so it fits your criminal legislation.

It would depend entirely on the facts of each case. A person passing on a bike or a pedestrian is at risk of injury from a car door. But they don't have a vehicle surrounding & protecting them like a car driver does. And against a car door, its very unlikely the driver would be injured unless there were other factors in play.

Warwick_Hunt

unholyangel wrote: »

It would depend entirely on the facts of each case. A person passing on a bike or a pedestrian is at risk of injury from a car door. But they don't have a vehicle surrounding & protecting them like a car driver does. And against a car door, its very unlikely the driver would be injured unless there were other factors in play.

A door opened onto a moving vehicle is enough.