Minor accident in taxi - Door opened into another taxi.

[Eclassy]

vxr8mate said:

Suppose it depends on the reason the damage i.e. willful, negligent or accidental.

If a mother lost the plot and smashed a window with said buggy then I'm sure they would insist on her paying for the damage.

This is what I'd expect. When I take a taxi and pay a fare, I would expect to be covered for any reasonable liability. I cant see why 'renting' a taxi is any different from renting a car where I would be covered.

I think a taxi policy which will cover a taxi driver who opens his door and damages someone elses car but doesnt cover a passenger doing the same is a useless policy.

Obviously I dont expect a policy to cover wilful damage but getting out of a taxi in front of a hotel isnt unreasonable.

You know what the problem is? Your mate was too nice a person. He should have told the other car driver to do one.

At this stage, I would be preparing a defence along the lines of 'other car sped up from nowhere and almost ran me over' Two can play the lying game. No independent witnesses, no liability.

[boobles]

Eclassy said:

This is what I'd expect. When I take a taxi and pay a fare, I would expect to be covered for any reasonable liability. I cant see why 'renting' a taxi is any different from renting a car where I would be covered.

I think a taxi policy which will cover a taxi driver who opens his door and damages someone elses car but doesnt cover a passenger doing the same is a useless policy.

Obviously I dont expect a policy to cover wilful damage but getting out of a taxi in front of a hotel isnt unreasonable.

You know what the problem is? Your mate was too nice a person. He should have told the other car driver to do one.

Couldn't agree more.

At this stage, I would be preparing a defence along the lines of 'other car sped up from nowhere and almost ran me over' Two can play the lying game. No independent witnesses, no liability.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

vxr8mate said:

boobles said:

The way I see it (rightly or wrongly) a taxi is just another form of public transport.
Mothers with buggies damage busses every single day trying to get them in & out but they are not asked to pay for any damage. I really don't see a taxi being any different to be honest.

Suppose it depends on the reason the damage i.e. willful, negligent or accidental.

If a mother lost the plot and smashed a window with said buggy then I'm sure they would insist on her paying for the damage.

The law on liability doesn't care about accidental v deliberate, it cares about negligent v taking reasonable care.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eclassy said:

I think a taxi policy which will cover a taxi driver who opens his door and damages someone elses car but doesnt cover a passenger doing the same is a useless policy.

Oh dear! For the nth time, the taxi driver's policy will cover the third party damage done by the careless passenger. But the taxi driver, just because he has insurance, doesn't have to use it. He can pay the third party out of his own pocket and reclaim it from the person he thinks was negligent.

[dom9]

Good argument chaps but it looks like my buddy is being asked for money by the taxi that was 'hit'.

We don't know if he has tried to claim from my mate's driver's insurance or my mate's driver. That information has not been forthcoming but I suspect may be the reason for the delay?

Yes, you would have thought he'd be covered under the taxi he was in's insurance... But the claim appears to have come straight to him (or we don't know what's happened in the intervening 6 months)...

[g3org3y]

Is there any scope for your mate to contact the taxi company he used in order to see if the driver would act as a witness on his behalf and confirm it was only the mirror that was hit?

Perhaps that taxi company documented the event (incident report type thing) along with the impact areas/damage sustained?

[/very optimistic]

Edited by g3org3y on Friday 10th October 02:34