Taxi passenger opened taxi door into the side of my car. Who's liable?

DB1904

Car_54 said:

DB1904 said:

rajd said:

Hi team. 

I was driving though the notoriously narrow drop and go at Birmingham new street train station and a lady open the door of the taxi into the side of my car. It caused £600 worth of damage. To me it was clearly the passengers fault so I was asking her for her details but she had no ID to prove her address so I took her name down from a bank card and her phone number. She admitted it was her fault but that the taxi driver should have told her when to open the door... I managed to get a picture of the taxi before it drove off before I could get his details. The lady said she needed to get a train but would cover the costs. I didn't get her address but had her number and she pledged she was a "respectable person and from a good family" and she had shown me her bank card to prove her name so I accepted that and the train journey was long so didn't want her to miss it. It was an accident and she appeared to be decent. 

Fast forward a month. After initially saying she would pay for it, she has now said she doesn't want to pay anything and wants me to claim against the taxi driver. She gave me the taxi drivers number. I tried calling him to no answer but eventually he responded to a few texts. His response was aggressive and pretty disgusting but essentially said it was the passengers fault and to go after her. Along with that he would report me to the police if I contacted him again... 

Anyway, so now, I'm in a position where she's gone back on her word and I have no one's full details. I have contacted network rail and the police for the cctv and to report it. I have spoken to my insurance and stopped short of making the full claim. As soon as I pull that trigger I know I have to pay my excess, £400 and I will suffer on premiums for 5 years. I have 4 cars. 

The police have said that the taxi driving off and the passenger now refusing to play ball may constitute a crime but they have to confirm. They have crime'd it though. The CCTV will be released to the insurers and the police. 

I text the lady one more time explaining that she is still at fault and that if I put this through insurance, the cost to her will be much much higher. I even got a discount on the cost of repair. I imagine my insurance will claim against the taxi, if the taxi pays out, they will then pursue the passenger. 

What I expect is she says to go through insurance, taking the risk that the taxi insurance will just payout. Nevertheless, I find it disgusting that she expects no consequence of something that is 100% her fault. It's shameful. And even though the taxi driver is troll, he doesn't deserve it, it's not his fault. 

But what I would some help with is - who do you think is liable? What would you do? And should I just pay for the repair myself and accept that some people are horrible and dishonest. (And I should have just called the police on them in the station.) 

I am aware of the arguments that I have to notify the insurance company - this wouldn't be an issue if insurance companies weren't disgusting institutions that will charge me more for absolutely nothing. But that's another conversation. I have never once made an insurance claim on anything. 

All views and opinions welcome. 

Opening a door as to cause danger and fail to stop/report a collision are not offences subject to a crime report.

Under what legislation?

Are you referring to crime reports? If so Home Office Counting Rules. 

DB1904

TooManyPoints said:

Under what legislation?

I was going to ask the same question. The latter has a maximum penalty of six months' custody, so I imagine the police would want to record the allegation somehow.

Why? You like people to think you are qualified in legal matters. 

DB1904

400ixl said:

When was this incident?

The highway code changed in January to include the passing driver must "Take care when passing parked vehicles, leaving enough room (a door’s width or 1 metre) to avoid being hit if a car door is opened", but also has the following for the passenger:

Where people driving or passengers in a vehicle are able to do so, they should open the door using their hand on the opposite side to the door they are opening. For example, using their left hand to open a door on their right-hand side.

This will make them turn their head to look over their shoulder behind them. They’re then less likely to cause injury to:

• people cycling or riding a motorcycle passing on the road
• people on the pavement

Is that advice or a legal requirement? Unless it's a must then it's not law.

maxmycardagain

Driver

thats his No claims shot

Car_54

DB1904 said:

400ixl said:

When was this incident?

The highway code changed in January to include the passing driver must "Take care when passing parked vehicles, leaving enough room (a door’s width or 1 metre) to avoid being hit if a car door is opened", but also has the following for the passenger:

Where people driving or passengers in a vehicle are able to do so, they should open the door using their hand on the opposite side to the door they are opening. For example, using their left hand to open a door on their right-hand side.

This will make them turn their head to look over their shoulder behind them. They’re then less likely to cause injury to:

• people cycling or riding a motorcycle passing on the road
• people on the pavement

Is that advice or a legal requirement? Unless it's a must then it's not law.

Agreed. But the law hasn’t changed. Both driver and passenger are at fault.

sheramber

• you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic by looking all around and using your mirrors
• 
  
• where you are able to do so, you should open the door using your hand on the opposite side to the door you are opening; for example, use your left hand to open a door on your right-hand side. This will make you turn your head to look over your shoulder. You are then more likely to avoid causing injury to cyclists or motorcyclists passing you on the road, or to people on the pavement

DB1904

sheramber said:

• you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic by looking all around and using your mirrors
• 
  
• where you are able to do so, you should open the door using your hand on the opposite side to the door you are opening; for example, use your left hand to open a door on your right-hand side. This will make you turn your head to look over your shoulder. You are then more likely to avoid causing injury to cyclists or motorcyclists passing you on the road, or to people on the pavement

So you've put the must in bold. So to complete your post you need the relevant act covering the offence.

TooManyPoints

DB1904 said:

TooManyPoints said:

Under what legislation?

I was going to ask the same question. The latter has a maximum penalty of six months' custody, so I imagine the police would want to record the allegation somehow.

Why? You like people to think you are qualified in legal matters. 

I've really no concern what people think. If I wanted them to think I was qualified in legal matters I would tell them I have a first in law and was a practicing barrister. The reason I was going to ask the question was because I was intrigued by this:

Seems strange that the police have crimed it but don't know…

I must say I didn't really know what you meant when you say the police have “crimed” it. I've not come across the term before. I assumed you meant made a formal record of the incident and formed an early opinion of what offences may have been committed. If that’s what you meant, I don’t find it strange at all. In fact I'd find it very strange if they hadn't.

chrisw

If the taxi is found at fault, and it's difficult to see how they wouldn't be held accountable, you can reclaim your excess from them.

A non fault claim on your history is unlikely to push up your premiums by very much.

DB1904

TooManyPoints said:

DB1904 said:

TooManyPoints said:

Under what legislation?

I was going to ask the same question. The latter has a maximum penalty of six months' custody, so I imagine the police would want to record the allegation somehow.

Why? You like people to think you are qualified in legal matters. 

I've really no concern what people think. If I wanted them to think I was qualified in legal matters I would tell them I have a first in law and was a practicing barrister. The reason I was going to ask the question was because I was intrigued by this:

Seems strange that the police have crimed it but don't know…

I must say I didn't really know what you meant when you say the police have “crimed” it. I've not come across the term before. I assumed you meant made a formal record of the incident and formed an early opinion of what offences may have been committed. If that’s what you meant, I don’t find it strange at all. In fact I'd find it very strange if they hadn't.

The OP said crimes it, aka completed a crime report and given them a crime number. Given they don't know themselves what offence they are looking at then how have they completed a crime report? They can't and the two offences fail to stop and opening the door there is no requirement to complete a crime report.