Accidental damage to car - question

[Sandra6]

If A drives to B's house with B in the passenger seat, B then opens the door to hit the passing C did A park the car on the wrong side of the street/road facing oncoming traffic?

She was in the back. There was another passenger on the nearside otherwise she wouldnt have got out into the road.

I honestly don't understand you - I would pay out the cost to fix the problem. If it is cheaper to go through insurance (excess and future premium rises) then I would do that, if it is cheaper to do it outside of insurance then I would do that. If the cost of repair is £250 I have to suck it up, if it is 10K then clearly the insurance route is the way to go.[/QUOTE
There is no excess to pay on a third party claim. We made a claim recently for 2500 after our car was vandalised, our premiums have gone up by a tenner a year. I don't understand why people think using insurance for the purpose it is intended is such a big deal.

I also assume that A and C have informed their insurance companies about the incident as they should do, even though they have sorted it out between themselves.

Never assume!

Would be interested to know what the mother of B would think if it was her daughter in A's position? Would she have gone down the insurance route and then found the extra money for future higher car insurance, or settled away from insurance and hope to get some money off B

Having been in a similar position, I know I would make the repair myself or claim using insurance.
I think the agreed price is highly inflated, a panel can be repaired for £150 and this is just a scratch repair which would cost me a fraction of that.
I've not been offered any evidence of costs or payments made, just a demand for the money.
I'm happy with my moral viewpoint thank you.

 

[growingvegetables]

It's amoral for two individuals to stitch up a third party, in this case B ...

... B being the youngest and most "vulnerable" (sorry, @Sandra6 - I know that's the wrong word for your lass). But - as I've said already, I remain uncomfortable.

 

[classic33]

yes it would... but you do not legally have to make claims for damage through the insurance companies

If you've to inform them, fail to do so & at a later date personal injury does happen, can the insurer not turn round and say you never mentioned this(as agreed you would do) and refuse to pay out?


As for not mentioning it/informing the insurance company, I've been there. The owner "forgot to inform" her insurance company.

 

[swansonj]

The point is being made here by some that, notwithstanding B made an error, A still has some legal responsibility as the driver. I think that's more than just a legal nicety. I think it is a very serious point of principle that if you take charge of a vehicle, you are assuming a responsibility for not endangering other people, a responsibility that must extend to every single aspect of the vehicle you have taken charge of. I think we would all be worse off in the long run if that principle got eroded too much.

 

[classic33]

Would be interested to know what the mother of B would think if it was her daughter in A's position? Would she have gone down the insurance route and then found the extra money for future higher car insurance, or settled away from insurance and hope to get some money off B

If you can't afford the insurance, drive without it or stop driving.

 

[growingvegetables]

This would be grossly unfair on A.

Really?

Clearly this was an accident but one that was caused by B and so B should ensure A and C are not out of pocket.

I beg to differ.

I remain concerned at the real possibility that the youngest lass (and by implication, her parent) happens to be the easiest person to hang liability on. The underhand games between persons A and C, apparently excluding B and her mother, leave me deeply uncomfortable.

I'm sorry - but I really can not understand the strong, but very distinct, undertone in this thread, that it's all somehow "unfair on A". That's really winding me up.

Declaration of interest.

- I'm the parent of four children who could so easily been B. Lots of times.

- But I'm also the parent of kids who could have been A. One of them has had a couple of close escapes. Trust me ... any illusions he may have had, that I'd stand up for him no matter what, didn't last long. He got a sharp, "clearly-worded" reminder that "his driving", "his car", "his insurance", "his premiums" ... are HIS RESPONSIBILITY. Not easy. But necessary?

 

[User33236]

..our premiums have gone up by a tenner a year....

I presume, as you have a 15 year old daughter, you are somewhat older and have been driving longer than A, who you describe as young, therefore your experience of a low increase in premium will almost certainly be different to that of a young driver.

 

[growingvegetables]

What this thread says to me is: there are a large number of people on this forum I would refuse to do any business with if this is the morals you have.

Hate to say it. But just possibly you may find a lot of people on this forum would hesitate to do business with you?

 

[PaulSB]

@growingvegetables I see your concern but can I refer back to the OP’s original post and opening sentence:

“Scenario is thus - young person A drives up to young person B 's house, parks and B opens the car door and hits a passing carbelonging to grown adult C.“

I don’t see how the above can be hanging liability on the easiest person. The above sentence stated B opened the door and therefore caused the damage.

I don’t know if the driver, A, is legally responsible for passengers but accept the assertion from those who say this is the case. BUT how many of those commenting here or indeed reading the whole forum ask every passenger on every occasion to open the door carefully? I did for my kids when small and often got out to open the doors. Possibly at 15? I don’t know. If I park close to say a lamppost I might say, but every day? No. A can’t be held responsible and should not suffer financially

It’s been suggested C should not be in the door zone. I agree ideally we would all drive outside of the door zone. Practically this is impossible in modern traffic. I thought about this thread while doing a 12 mile round trip this evening and watched for instances when I should have moved out of the door zone. Too numerous to count.

So yes C should not have been in the door zone but we don’t have enough information to judge if there was sufficient room to allow this.

 

[toffee]

Couldn't that push their premium up?

Yes it will. These are some of the terms of Direct Line.

 

[PaulSB]

The point is being made here by some that, notwithstanding B made an error, A still has some legal responsibility as the driver. I think that's more than just a legal nicety. I think it is a very serious point of principle that if you take charge of a vehicle, you are assuming a responsibility for not endangering other people, a responsibility that must extend to every single aspect of the vehicle you have taken charge of. I think we would all be worse off in the long run if that principle got eroded too much.

For me this is a very interesting point and a new piece of information. Obviously as the car driver I am 100% responsible for the safe use, by me, of the vehicle. I was not aware I could be held responsible for the actions of a passenger. A couple of points/questions:

I am not being facetious when I ask should we all be mitigating or our responsibility or limiting the potential for a claim by handing passengers an expected behaviour code?

If I’m driving and giving 100% attention to that the distraction of ensuring passengers behave correctly is in itself dangerous. Anyone who’s driven with s screaming child in the back knows this.

 

[growingvegetables]

@growingvegetables I see your concern but can I refer back to the OP’s original post and opening sentence:

“Scenario is thus - young person A drives up to young person B 's house, parks and B opens the car door and hits a passing carbelonging to grown adult C.“

I don’t see how the above can be hanging liability on the easiest person. The above sentence stated B opened the door and therefore caused the damage.

No disrespect to @Sandra6 - but there's a fair degree of "compression" there?

A can’t be held responsible and should not suffer financially.

Not being there at the actual moment, I can't argue that. But --- neither can you?

Actually - I'm finding (and this is not directed at you personally) the attempts to exonerate the actual driver, the person in charge of the vehicle, very disturbing.

It’s been suggested C should not be in the door zone. I agree ideally we would all drive outside of the door zone. Practically this is impossible in modern traffic.

In the old days, we had a brake pedal? I call you on your simplistic, and (I suggest!) biassed "practicality". Please - look at what you've written. IMHO, it's unforgivable.

 

[PaulSB]

No disrespect to @Sandra6 - but there's a fair degree of "compression" there?


Not being there at the actual moment, I can't argue that. But --- neither can you?

Actually - I'm finding (and this is not directed at you personally) the attempts to exonerate the actual driver, the person in charge of the vehicle, very disturbing.


In the old days, we had a brake pedal? I call you on your simplistic, and (I suggest!) biassed "practicality". Please - look at what you've written. IMHO, it's unforgivable.

True neither of us was there but the information we’ve been given is B opened the door. I don’t understand how A is responsible for this. Though I now understand from other posts the driver is legally responsible for passenger behaviour. This is totally new for me and if correct I agree it puts full liability on A. It seems to me this opens up a huge debate on how a driver exercises that responsibility.

I’m not sure how my view on practicality is biased or what I’ve written is unforgivable. Sorry I just can’t see it but would be happy to have it explained to me.

Can I say this. When cars are parked on the road in to my village driving outside the door zone is literally impossible unless one drives on the opposite pavement. In my local town on some streets outside the door zone would be on the wrong side of the road. I’m not exaggerating. This is what I mean by practicality in modern traffic.

If I’m misguided in this please explain how. I’m not taking it as a personal attack. I’m interested to learn

 

[oldfatfool]

Given the fruroar on here when a certain mp opened a cab door into the path of a cyclist.... With the only caveat that your son is 15 afaik it is an offence to open a car door recklessly ie without looking. Sure you can tell A to jog on or expect them to lose thousands by using insurance but at the end of the day it is your sons actions that are to blame. Teach him to take responsability and dock is pocket money.

 

[growingvegetables]

This is what I mean by practicality in modern traffic.

Sadly, your phrase "practicality in modern traffic" has come to mean, all too often, FAR too often, "four-wheels-good-and-barge-our-entitled-way-through".

If I’m misguided in this please explain how. I’m not taking it as a personal attack.

No worries! A wee difference on a forum is words.

But a driver forgetting his/her brake pedal IS a personal attack.