Minor accident in taxi - Door opened into another taxi.
Discussion
oyster said:
From reading the OP, the driver parked facing oncoming traffic. Surely that is what caused the pax to open the door into 'live' traffic?
I think that's a pretty thin definition of 'but for' causation.Yes, it probably wouldn't have happened had the driver parked on the opposite side of the road. However all the passenger had to do was scoot across the rear seat and it definitely wouldn't have happened.
oyster said:
From reading the OP, the driver parked facing oncoming traffic. Surely that is what caused the pax to open the door into 'live' traffic?
CYMR0 said:
I think that's a pretty thin definition of 'but for' causation.
Yes, it probably wouldn't have happened had the driver parked on the opposite side of the road. However all the passenger had to do was scoot across the rear seat and it definitely wouldn't have happened.
Yeah, the sad thing is that there was deliberacy in sitting on that side so as NOT to make the mistake and then made it anyway, when the car switched sides of the road. Nothing more than tiredness but the mistake was his.Yes, it probably wouldn't have happened had the driver parked on the opposite side of the road. However all the passenger had to do was scoot across the rear seat and it definitely wouldn't have happened.
I can't stress enough that he's not looking to 'get out of' anything (as I understand it), though adding some 'weight' to why he may not have been completely negligent may not be a bad thing, but it's more the question of money... Seems a lot for no visible damage though I still haven't heard back so we still don't know who the claimant is or what he is claiming for, exactly.
Just checking-in, chaps, as it would be nice to update this thread until we have a conclusion!
No further information available (my buddy never did get the email they said they'd send) but doing a Google of the number he was called from brings up these guys: http://www.mohlaw.co.uk/home/
No further information available (my buddy never did get the email they said they'd send) but doing a Google of the number he was called from brings up these guys: http://www.mohlaw.co.uk/home/
oyster said:
Breadvan72 said:
He's a cabbie, not a nanny. If the punter chooses to get out on the trafficky side and maybe doesn't look carefully, that's not the driver's fault.
From reading the OP, the driver parked facing oncoming traffic. Surely that is what caused the pax to open the door into 'live' traffic?This happened to me once in Belgium when I forgot I was on the wrong side getting out of a taxi. I'm ashamed to say I headed off to catch my flight without leaving my contact details and let the two drivers argue it out between themselves, but the woman who hit the door I opened didn't help her case by immediately saying to the cabbie "FFS this is the second accident I've had this week!"
Breadvan72 said:
oyster said:
Breadvan72 said:
He's a cabbie, not a nanny. If the punter chooses to get out on the trafficky side and maybe doesn't look carefully, that's not the driver's fault.
From reading the OP, the driver parked facing oncoming traffic. Surely that is what caused the pax to open the door into 'live' traffic?Or what if the passenger was from a country who drive on the opposite side of the road?
I get the point about personal responsibility though.
Having said that, why wasn't the passing car taking personal responsibility and giving a full open door's width of clearance.
Hi guys - Finally an update!
It is the 'other driver' who is claiming to recover his excess (the Prius driver whose mirror was hit)...
What is interesting is that the receipt is for "Repair NS front wing. Repair N/S Front bumper corner. Respray all where repaired. Labour £300 includive of paint and sundriues materials".
This is a hand written receipt (on garage headed paper) if it makes any difference and dated a couple of months after the accident.
This has come as a surprise as NO contact was made with the wing or bumper. Interesting the wing mirror wasn't mentioned at all. The part that sticks out furthest.
He spoke with the (very nice, apparently) lady at Morris Orman Hearle solicitors handling this and explained that there was ZERO contact with that part of his car and she said she would speak with their client.
The email from the solicitor went:
Good afternoon,
I refer to the above claim and to your telephone conversation with my colleague earlier today.
We have been instructed on behalf of our above named client to pursue a claim in respect of uninsured losses suffered as a result of the above accident. We are instructed that you were responsible for the accident and our client looks to you for compensation in respect of those losses.
The circumstances of this accident as advised to us by our client are you have opened the taxi door into our client’s correctly proceeding and established vehicle.
You will note that under Road Traffic Act, Haven Insurance would only have liability to satisfy judgment against the passenger if the passenger was held to be “the user” of the vehicle. The definition of use is shown in Brown v Roberts 1965 and Hatton v Hall where us must entail an element of “the person alleged to the user controlling, managing/operating” the vehicle at the time of the accident.
Please find attached evidence our client has provided in support of the following losses:
Vehicle repairs £300.00
Loss of use £75.00
As such we trust that liability will not be an issue and look forward to receiving a cheque to the value of £375.00 made payable to ‘Chequers Transport Ltd’ within the next 14 days. (Please find our postal address below).
Kind Regards,
Obviously he didn't do that damage and really isn't happy. He told them he would email them something 'formal' in response, today. I have given him some of the responses on here, which I think will help him.
Interesting they felt they had to quote the RTAct and some case law...
Any thoughts on a formal (not FRO - LOL) response? I'd say he could have his driver witness that no damage was done to that part of the car but I'm not sure they are in contact/ on speaking terms as I suspect his driver has had some hassle by the sounds of things!
It is the 'other driver' who is claiming to recover his excess (the Prius driver whose mirror was hit)...
What is interesting is that the receipt is for "Repair NS front wing. Repair N/S Front bumper corner. Respray all where repaired. Labour £300 includive of paint and sundriues materials".
This is a hand written receipt (on garage headed paper) if it makes any difference and dated a couple of months after the accident.
This has come as a surprise as NO contact was made with the wing or bumper. Interesting the wing mirror wasn't mentioned at all. The part that sticks out furthest.
He spoke with the (very nice, apparently) lady at Morris Orman Hearle solicitors handling this and explained that there was ZERO contact with that part of his car and she said she would speak with their client.
The email from the solicitor went:
Good afternoon,
I refer to the above claim and to your telephone conversation with my colleague earlier today.
We have been instructed on behalf of our above named client to pursue a claim in respect of uninsured losses suffered as a result of the above accident. We are instructed that you were responsible for the accident and our client looks to you for compensation in respect of those losses.
The circumstances of this accident as advised to us by our client are you have opened the taxi door into our client’s correctly proceeding and established vehicle.
You will note that under Road Traffic Act, Haven Insurance would only have liability to satisfy judgment against the passenger if the passenger was held to be “the user” of the vehicle. The definition of use is shown in Brown v Roberts 1965 and Hatton v Hall where us must entail an element of “the person alleged to the user controlling, managing/operating” the vehicle at the time of the accident.
Please find attached evidence our client has provided in support of the following losses:
Vehicle repairs £300.00
Loss of use £75.00
As such we trust that liability will not be an issue and look forward to receiving a cheque to the value of £375.00 made payable to ‘Chequers Transport Ltd’ within the next 14 days. (Please find our postal address below).
Kind Regards,
Obviously he didn't do that damage and really isn't happy. He told them he would email them something 'formal' in response, today. I have given him some of the responses on here, which I think will help him.
Interesting they felt they had to quote the RTAct and some case law...
Any thoughts on a formal (not FRO - LOL) response? I'd say he could have his driver witness that no damage was done to that part of the car but I'm not sure they are in contact/ on speaking terms as I suspect his driver has had some hassle by the sounds of things!
Breadvan72 said:
He's a cabbie, not a nanny. If the punter chooses to get out on the trafficky side and maybe doesn't look carefully, that's not the driver's fault.
Well, it can be:Edelman v Harcott [2001] C.L.Y. 4545
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?...
And so it rumbles on...
That is the response to a long email from 10+ days ago, incorporating a lot of the points made here.
Clearly none of the questions asked (such as please show pictures of damage before and after etc) have been answered and it is just another blind demand.
He was VERY clear in that he admitted opening the door and making contact with the WING MIRROR but denied making contact with any of the rest of the car.
They have failed to answer why the demand is so late in coming or why the repair was performed so long after the accident.
It looks to me like a bit of 'bully' tactics - but do you have any comments on a response to this one?
That is the response to a long email from 10+ days ago, incorporating a lot of the points made here.
Clearly none of the questions asked (such as please show pictures of damage before and after etc) have been answered and it is just another blind demand.
He was VERY clear in that he admitted opening the door and making contact with the WING MIRROR but denied making contact with any of the rest of the car.
They have failed to answer why the demand is so late in coming or why the repair was performed so long after the accident.
It looks to me like a bit of 'bully' tactics - but do you have any comments on a response to this one?
Morris Orman Hearle Solicitors said:
Good morning,
We refer to the above claim and to your email below.
· We note your admission of liability to opening the car door and making contact to our client’s vehicle. We have previously provided you with a paid invoice showing that damage was sustained to our client’s vehicle.
As such we continue to pursue a cheque to the value of £375.00 made payable to ‘XXX’ as a result of your negligence.
Unless we receive your satisfactory response within 7 days, we will have no choice but to commence immediate proceedings which will be served on you directly. Please accept this letter as the notice to which you are entitled under S.152 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988.
Kind Regards,
We refer to the above claim and to your email below.
· We note your admission of liability to opening the car door and making contact to our client’s vehicle. We have previously provided you with a paid invoice showing that damage was sustained to our client’s vehicle.
As such we continue to pursue a cheque to the value of £375.00 made payable to ‘XXX’ as a result of your negligence.
Unless we receive your satisfactory response within 7 days, we will have no choice but to commence immediate proceedings which will be served on you directly. Please accept this letter as the notice to which you are entitled under S.152 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988.
Kind Regards,
dom9 said:
And so it rumbles on...
That is the response to a long email from 10+ days ago, incorporating a lot of the points made here.
Clearly none of the questions asked (such as please show pictures of damage before and after etc) have been answered and it is just another blind demand.
He was VERY clear in that he admitted opening the door and making contact with the WING MIRROR but denied making contact with any of the rest of the car.
They have failed to answer why the demand is so late in coming or why the repair was performed so long after the accident.
It looks to me like a bit of 'bully' tactics - but do you have any comments on a response to this one?
Call their bluff.That is the response to a long email from 10+ days ago, incorporating a lot of the points made here.
Clearly none of the questions asked (such as please show pictures of damage before and after etc) have been answered and it is just another blind demand.
He was VERY clear in that he admitted opening the door and making contact with the WING MIRROR but denied making contact with any of the rest of the car.
They have failed to answer why the demand is so late in coming or why the repair was performed so long after the accident.
It looks to me like a bit of 'bully' tactics - but do you have any comments on a response to this one?
Morris Orman Hearle Solicitors said:
Good morning,
We refer to the above claim and to your email below.
· We note your admission of liability to opening the car door and making contact to our client’s vehicle. We have previously provided you with a paid invoice showing that damage was sustained to our client’s vehicle.
As such we continue to pursue a cheque to the value of £375.00 made payable to ‘XXX’ as a result of your negligence.
Unless we receive your satisfactory response within 7 days, we will have no choice but to commence immediate proceedings which will be served on you directly. Please accept this letter as the notice to which you are entitled under S.152 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988.
Kind Regards,
We refer to the above claim and to your email below.
· We note your admission of liability to opening the car door and making contact to our client’s vehicle. We have previously provided you with a paid invoice showing that damage was sustained to our client’s vehicle.
As such we continue to pursue a cheque to the value of £375.00 made payable to ‘XXX’ as a result of your negligence.
Unless we receive your satisfactory response within 7 days, we will have no choice but to commence immediate proceedings which will be served on you directly. Please accept this letter as the notice to which you are entitled under S.152 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988.
Kind Regards,
Respond and say you have asked for evidence to substantiate that the works done related to the incident as alleged and that if that evidence is not provided it is your assumption that they are sending you the bill for the repair of entirely unrelated damage.
It might also be worth pointing out that on the basis of the information provided to date, that is also the reasonable conclusion that a court would be likely to reach.
loafer123 said:
Call their bluff.
Respond and say you have asked for evidence to substantiate that the works done related to the incident as alleged and that if that evidence is not provided it is your assumption that they are sending you the bill for the repair of entirely unrelated damage.
It might also be worth pointing out that on the basis of the information provided to date, that is also the reasonable conclusion that a court would be likely to reach.
Hi Loafer - Thanks for that. That's pretty much what has been done.Respond and say you have asked for evidence to substantiate that the works done related to the incident as alleged and that if that evidence is not provided it is your assumption that they are sending you the bill for the repair of entirely unrelated damage.
It might also be worth pointing out that on the basis of the information provided to date, that is also the reasonable conclusion that a court would be likely to reach.
On the basis that there is no real way the door could hit the bumper without hitting something else first (the wheel arch cut out in the door is very large with the widest point of the Merc door being well above the bumper) it only adds to his certain belief that it was the wing mirror and only the wing mirror that was hit so he does feel he wants to fight this.
OP,
Unless the law has changed substantially in the last 5 years I suggest you just ignore the idiots.
I opened a minicab door into a railing in 2009 and as a result there was a small ding in the trailing edge of the door.
The driver was out of the cab in 2 seconds flat and examining the ding and was then sure I'd have to pay him to get it fixed. Enter the Police who saw the commotion to find out what was happening.
As I was later for my appointment and had no stomach to argue the toss I gave my details to the Police and left, as did the minicab driver; him before me.
I asked the Police (a very wise old Sergeant) what would happen and he replied (I paraphrase) "we see dozens of these a day and it's up to the driver to sort it out with his insurance. No accusations have been made stating that you did it deliberately and so don't worry about it, in my opinion you'll hear nothing more about it".
I heard nothing more......
Unless the law has changed substantially in the last 5 years I suggest you just ignore the idiots.
I opened a minicab door into a railing in 2009 and as a result there was a small ding in the trailing edge of the door.
The driver was out of the cab in 2 seconds flat and examining the ding and was then sure I'd have to pay him to get it fixed. Enter the Police who saw the commotion to find out what was happening.
As I was later for my appointment and had no stomach to argue the toss I gave my details to the Police and left, as did the minicab driver; him before me.
I asked the Police (a very wise old Sergeant) what would happen and he replied (I paraphrase) "we see dozens of these a day and it's up to the driver to sort it out with his insurance. No accusations have been made stating that you did it deliberately and so don't worry about it, in my opinion you'll hear nothing more about it".
I heard nothing more......
OP, your friend should also be asking for an explanation why the repairs took so many months to organise, and also evidence to establish the loss of use or at lest a breakdown on how this is calculated.
It might be the minor part (£75) but there is a whole raft of caselaw and legal arguments about loss of use (it gets fairly complicated) - if the person pursing their losses is a taxi company, they will need to show that their available fleet was at a high level of use at the time the vehicle was off the road and that as a consequence they lost earnings.
It might be the minor part (£75) but there is a whole raft of caselaw and legal arguments about loss of use (it gets fairly complicated) - if the person pursing their losses is a taxi company, they will need to show that their available fleet was at a high level of use at the time the vehicle was off the road and that as a consequence they lost earnings.
OdramaSwimLaden said:
OP,
Unless the law has changed substantially in the last 5 years I suggest you just ignore the idiots.
I opened a minicab door into a railing in 2009 and as a result there was a small ding in the trailing edge of the door.
The driver was out of the cab in 2 seconds flat and examining the ding and was then sure I'd have to pay him to get it fixed. Enter the Police who saw the commotion to find out what was happening.
As I was later for my appointment and had no stomach to argue the toss I gave my details to the Police and left, as did the minicab driver; him before me.
I asked the Police (a very wise old Sergeant) what would happen and he replied (I paraphrase) "we see dozens of these a day and it's up to the driver to sort it out with his insurance. No accusations have been made stating that you did it deliberately and so don't worry about it, in my opinion you'll hear nothing more about it".
I heard nothing more......
Are you saying that unless you cause damage deliberately, you can't be held accountable? Also, you state that "unless the law has changed in the last 5 yrs" but in your story form 2009, you don't reference what the law was then. All you are referencing is, as you stated, an opinion.Unless the law has changed substantially in the last 5 years I suggest you just ignore the idiots.
I opened a minicab door into a railing in 2009 and as a result there was a small ding in the trailing edge of the door.
The driver was out of the cab in 2 seconds flat and examining the ding and was then sure I'd have to pay him to get it fixed. Enter the Police who saw the commotion to find out what was happening.
As I was later for my appointment and had no stomach to argue the toss I gave my details to the Police and left, as did the minicab driver; him before me.
I asked the Police (a very wise old Sergeant) what would happen and he replied (I paraphrase) "we see dozens of these a day and it's up to the driver to sort it out with his insurance. No accusations have been made stating that you did it deliberately and so don't worry about it, in my opinion you'll hear nothing more about it".
I heard nothing more......
Norse_mann said:
OP, your friend should also be asking for an explanation why the repairs took so many months to organise, and also evidence to establish the loss of use or at lest a breakdown on how this is calculated.
It might be the minor part (£75) but there is a whole raft of caselaw and legal arguments about loss of use (it gets fairly complicated) - if the person pursing their losses is a taxi company, they will need to show that their available fleet was at a high level of use at the time the vehicle was off the road and that as a consequence they lost earnings.
Thanks chaps... They want a cheque made out to the taxi company, not a person, and I believe the £75 was for a day off the fleet, like the lease cost on a daily basis, if that makes sense?It might be the minor part (£75) but there is a whole raft of caselaw and legal arguments about loss of use (it gets fairly complicated) - if the person pursing their losses is a taxi company, they will need to show that their available fleet was at a high level of use at the time the vehicle was off the road and that as a consequence they lost earnings.
My gut feel is that the car is leased and they needed some damage (which he didn't do) repaired before it went back... Or they were charged for damage on returning it.
The major questions to me are:
- Why was the repair performed so many weeks after?
- Why was my buddy only informed/ pursued 6 months later?
- Why are there no pictures etc of the damage?
- How can they prove he did the damage?
He will swear on the Bible/ lie detector/ whatever that he is 100% sure that it hit the wing mirror. Looking at a mercedes door, I can't see how it could have hit the bumper and not made contact elsewhere i.e. it would defy the laws of physics!
dom9 said:
Thanks chaps... They want a cheque made out to the taxi company, not a person, and I believe the £75 was for a day off the fleet, like the lease cost on a daily basis, if that makes sense?
My gut feel is that the car is leased and they needed some damage (which he didn't do) repaired before it went back... Or they were charged for damage on returning it.
The major questions to me are:
- Why was the repair performed so many weeks after?
- Why was my buddy only informed/ pursued 6 months later?
- Why are there no pictures etc of the damage?
- How can they prove he did the damage?
He will swear on the Bible/ lie detector/ whatever that he is 100% sure that it hit the wing mirror. Looking at a mercedes door, I can't see how it could have hit the bumper and not made contact elsewhere i.e. it would defy the laws of physics!
Then enjoy your day in court. It looks likely that they'll pursue it. You're on a sticky wicket IMO. My gut feel is that the car is leased and they needed some damage (which he didn't do) repaired before it went back... Or they were charged for damage on returning it.
The major questions to me are:
- Why was the repair performed so many weeks after?
- Why was my buddy only informed/ pursued 6 months later?
- Why are there no pictures etc of the damage?
- How can they prove he did the damage?
He will swear on the Bible/ lie detector/ whatever that he is 100% sure that it hit the wing mirror. Looking at a mercedes door, I can't see how it could have hit the bumper and not made contact elsewhere i.e. it would defy the laws of physics!
LoonR1 said:
Then enjoy your day in court. It looks likely that they'll pursue it. You're on a sticky wicket IMO.
Good to have another opinion on here but on what grounds do you say that? If he didn't (and I believe as he does, he didn't) - would you roll over and accept it and would a court find in favour of the claimant when it looks fairly simple to prove the door couldn't contact the bumper and their only 'evidence' seems to be a receipt!dom9 said:
Good to have another opinion on here but on what grounds do you say that? If he didn't (and I believe as he does, he didn't) - would you roll over and accept it and would a court find in favour of the claimant when it looks fairly simple to prove the door couldn't contact the bumper and their only 'evidence' seems to be a receipt!
1. he's admitted he did it2. The argument over delay to repair is irrelevant, they have 6 years to claim in
3. The 6 month delay to claim is irrelevant, see 2
4. The argument over the amount is invalid, as long as it's "reasonable" ie within the going rate for repairs. See Coles vs Hetherton
5. Suggesting it's not valid because you think the claimant is fraudulent is going to need some serious evidence to support it and even then courts still make awards where the claim is exaggerated.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff