Passenger Liability

[MCBIRNIE25]

If a taxi passenger opens a car door in to the road to depart, and the door gets hit by a van, can the passenger be held liable?

 

He is arguing that the driver should have made sure it was safe for him to alight, and why did he let him out roadside, instead of turning the car around to park him on the pavement.

 

My friend never seen the van when he checked out the mirror.

 

The van and taxi exchanged details, but neither left their details with my friend, who has been in deep shock since it happened.

 

The taxi was a settle car, and it's they who are telling my friend he will get a claims letter to cover the cost of the damage.

Edited March 24, 2017 by MCBIRNIE25
Added information

[king12345]

Taxis have a special insurance to deal with these sorts of situations.

Your friend would be liable only if he intentionally damaged the taxi or van, which of corse doesn't apply in this case.

[MCBIRNIE25]

Thanks.

It's the settle car company that are threatening him with having to pay them back, not the driver himself. Thanks for your input.

[king12345]

What's the settle car company???

[MCBIRNIE25]

It's the company the driver hires the cab from. He pays them a weekly settle for the car.

[king12345]

It's the company the driver hires the cab from. He pays them a weekly settle for the car.

They must be insured, surely.

[Surfer01]

As a matter of interest, did the passenger get out the left or right hand side of the taxi? If left, how come the door was hit? If right why did the passenger get out into the roadway when they could have used the safer option of the left door? By the same token why was the van driving that close to a park vehicle and not observing the parked vehicle which being a taxi may have passengers leaving it?

[BazzaS]

Just because the car company has insurance doesn't mean the insurer has to 'take the hit' for damage caused, if caused by negligence.

The insurer can go after the negligent party (if it was a negligent act).

 

By analogy: If you have fully comp car insurance and your car is involve din an accident, your insurers can arrange for it to be repaired even before liability is determined.

If the other side is deemed liable, they can go after them. If the other side wasn't insured, they can go after the uninsured individual (if are likely to have the funds to make it worthwhile).

[Mwynci]

Not very helpful I'm afraid, but many moons ago I used to deal with Taxi insurance and there was something about a taxi not having a vicarious liability for their passengers actions unless they choose to do so. Opened passenger doors in particular. Whereas a private vehicle does.

 

The more current insurance guys still working in it may have a better idea.

 

The whole argument about the taxi pulling to the other side of the road etc is a bit poor.

[ericsbrother]

taxi drivers can be responsible for their passengers actions and the passenger is responsible for a chauffeur's actions as their servant.

 

All boils down to a court case about someone running a red light and then claiming that they were instructed to do so by the passenger.

The cab owning co wont get very far unless he decides to agree to pay up.

 

As already mentioned there is also the issue of the taxi crossing the carriageway (possible careless driving) if he alighted from the normal passenger side The London taxi style cabs used in many cities have locking door that wont open until the driver releases them.

[Ethel Street]

It's the company the driver hires the cab from. He pays them a weekly settle for the car.

 

I still don't understand the arrangement. What's "paying a weekly settle". I've never heard the expression. Is this in England or Scotland?

 

Even if the taxi and it's driver are insured they might have quite a large excess and it could be this uninsured excess the cab company is seeking to recover.

[ericsbrother]

it is a lease agreement for the taxi itself. basically the taxi driver is renting a cab and the owner of the cab is now outraged it has less doors than last week.

[MCBIRNIE25]

Hi all,

just following on from this.

 

Today i received a letter stating they want to pursue me for the damage to the cab, which, after my initial shock, i find outrageous.

 

I did open the door in the rear of the vehicle, but surely the driver has some obligation also to ensure that the road was clear and inform me, he dropped me roadside after all.

 

I could only see a little in the mirrors, and i could not see the van that hit the door.

 

The taxi parked right opposite another vehicle, which was a bit naughty too.

However my actions were not malicious in any way.

 

I haven't got a pot to ..., so they can pursue me,

but it's the principle of the matter.

 

I injured my hand when the van hit the door, but i never claimed as I don't believe in claim culture and such like.

In my mind, it was an accident.

Anyone got any thoughts on this?

[Ganymede]

Pursue YOU for damages?!

 

Thought this was your "friend".

[Old Cogger]

taxi drivers use to be polite and step out to open passengers doors - courtesy - of course these days they want monies monies monies and less work and show off their knees and on the phone whilst taking monies from you

[sgtbush]

A taxi driver has a duty of care to passengers. Parking in a way that they have to get out into a live lane of traffic is not having a sense of duty of care.

 

They have insurance

They just don't want to make a claim and have increased premiums.

Go tell them to whistle.

Unless they can prove negligence they have no claim.

 

Infact write back to them refuting their claim and make a claim that due to the taxi drivers lack of a duty of care to you, you were forced, by the way of action by the driver, to exit the vehicle in a dangerous manner, namely into a live lane of traffic.

[SuperVillain]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/80-fine-taxi-passenger-killed-cyclist-opening-door/

[Ethel Street]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/80-fine-taxi-passenger-killed-cyclist-opening-door/

 

Although this is about criminal offences not civil liability interesting to see that there were two separate offences for which charges were brought for the incident

 

-- "the opening of vehicle door so as to injure or endanger a person" - the charge brought against the passenger

 

-- "permitting the opening of vehicle door so as to injure or endanger a person" - the charge brought against the taxi driver

 

Passenger pleaded guilty and was convicted and fined. Taxi driver pleaded not guilty so his case has not yet come to court. I presume the outcome for the taxi driver will depend on the facts of this specific incident rather than the legal principles.

[SuperVillain]

Although this is about criminal offences not civil liability interesting to see that there were two separate offences for which charges were brought for the incident

 

-- "the opening of vehicle door so as to injure or endanger a person" - the charge brought against the passenger

 

-- "permitting the opening of vehicle door so as to injure or endanger a person" - the charge brought against the taxi driver

 

Passenger pleaded guilty and was convicted and fined. Taxi driver pleaded not guilty so his case has not yet come to court. I presume the outcome for the taxi driver will depend on the facts of this specific incident rather than the legal principles.

 

I didn't notice that!

 

Did a quick google search of the cabbie's name and it appears the driver was also found guilty last month, received a £300.00 fine. He argued that he did not give the passenger permission to open the door, but conceded that no instructions whatsoever were given. On that basis, he appears to have been found guilty - "by giving no instructions permission was inferred".

 

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170607/282252370498220

 

I agree, this appears to be very fact heavy. I don't think the OP should just assume that this is a slam dunk and that the taxi co will just cave in.