Minor accident in taxi - Door opened into another taxi.

[dom9]

Gents, bear with me on this one and I'll try and explain...

Back in March, one of my buddies called a taxi company to pick him up from Heathrow and take him to a hotel in London (not a black cab).

The driver pulled up right outside the hotel, facing oncoming traffic. The passenger sitting on the passenger side (left side) opened the door and it clipped an oncoming Prius' wing mirror (also a taxi, he thinks).

At the scene, the cars were examined and no damage could be seen. The drivers were shouting at each other, with his driver acknowledging there was no damage, so the passenger paid for the journey (plus a good tip) and left his details if it needed sorting out.

A few days later someone from an insurance company phoned him to ask what happened, he told them the story and heard no more about it.

Now, today (apparently) he has had a call from a solictor saying they are sending some paperwork to him with a demand for £300 in repairs and £75 in lost time. This is approximately 6 months after the accident.

I think he'd forgotten all about it, to be honest, so it has come as a bit of a shock to receive a call today.

I don't know what to say as I know nothing about taxis/ insurance so I thought you gents may be able to give some advice?

He did the damage and is happy to pay but I suggested that £300 sounded a bit steep (I think, not sure yet, this is for the car that was hit NOT the car he was in but will confirm) if there was no visible damage as if it was the wing mirror he clipped (apparently the indicator glass wasn't even broken) - What part could be that much to buy/ paint!?

He is also being asked for £75 lost income... How long would this repair have required and why would it have to be done during working hours?

Anyway, he's not being unreasonable, I am just wondering whether he should challenge the costs. He did get photos but now can't find them (ugh).

I guess he may also be able to claim on some insurance of sorts? Maybe home or something, if he didn't want to pay in cash. Either way - I have asked a few questions and may get some answers to fill in some blanks, shortly.

Any thoughts?

(PS the poor sod is from a country where they drive on the wrong side of the road so he really didn't mean to do anything silly)

Edited by dom9 on Thursday 18th September 11:24

[Galsia]

Surely this should be done through the Taxi Driver's insurance?

[rigga]

Galsia said:

Surely this should be done through the Taxi Driver's insurance?

This, what's it got to do with the passenger?

[Eclassy]

Absolutely nothing to do with your mate financially. Thats why there is taxi insurance. It should cover any reasonable third party damage caused by passengers. Your mate is too nice for offering to pay anything.

IANAL so this isnt gospel.

[Roo]

What they said.^^^^^

To answer your other question.

I have a door mirror on my desk that was £191. That doesn't include the colour coded cover or the time to fit it.

So, £300 fitted is about right and if it takes the garage an hour to fit it the other driver has lost his income for that time. So looks about right.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Above posters are half right. The damage to the Pruis will be covered by the motor insurers of the taxi your mate was sitting in, but there is nothing to stop them or the driver pursuing your mate for those costs, claiming your mate was negligent.

In the same way as if you gave a mate a lift, and he did some damage to your car, a cigarette burn or whatever.

If your mate has household insurance or if he was returning from a trip and had travel insurance, he may have personal liability cover that would deal with it for him.

[covboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Above posters are half right. The damage to the Pruis will be covered by the motor insurers of the taxi your mate was sitting in, but there is nothing to stop them or the driver pursuing your mate for those costs, claiming your mate was negligent.

In the same way as if you gave a mate a lift, and he did some damage to your car, a cigarette burn or whatever.

If your mate has household insurance or if he was returning from a trip and had travel insurance, he may have personal liability cover that would deal with it for him.

Is it not the taxi driver’s responsibility to ensure his passenger exits the vehicle safely?

[lukefreeman]

"Dear Taxi service

FRO

Yours,
Miffed customer"

[Greendubber]

I wouldn't be paying anything.

[dom9]

Thanks chaps.

He was coming to see me so I remember when it happened (he felt bad) but he doesn't know (and neither do I) the laws about these things. I thought it would be the end of it after the insurers spoke to him.

What I don't know is whether:

- the solictor is acting on behalf of his driver

- the solicitor is acting on behalf of the other driver

- the solicitor is acting on behalf of either driver's insurance company (trying to claim negligence, I guess, which I hadn't thought of - thanks)

I guess the answer to that may be important as to what needs to be said/ done.

6 months ago we told him to tell them to FRO (but he's a bit nice) as they must have insurance but maybe they don't HAVE to have insurance that covers the passenger. The solicitor apparently said that he wasn't covered due to some Road Traffic Act but he doesn't know which one and a Google brought up limited results.

I guess he's just worried about not paying and being taken to court. Which, I must admit, would worry me too so I am sympathetic and seeing if I can get some info!

Will post more details as/ when I get them but I saw pics at the time and there was no visible damage and the mirror glass, shell and indicator appeared to be intact from pictures (granted, not the best quality) hence the suggestion to FRO!

Could they have had some 'other work done' or created an invoice, is my thought! But I'm suspicious like that!

Edited by dom9 on Thursday 18th September 14:18

[TwigtheWonderkid]

covboy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Above posters are half right. The damage to the Pruis will be covered by the motor insurers of the taxi your mate was sitting in, but there is nothing to stop them or the driver pursuing your mate for those costs, claiming your mate was negligent.

In the same way as if you gave a mate a lift, and he did some damage to your car, a cigarette burn or whatever.

If your mate has household insurance or if he was returning from a trip and had travel insurance, he may have personal liability cover that would deal with it for him.

Is it not the taxi driver’s responsibility to ensure his passenger exits the vehicle safely?

Perhaps. I don't know the law on that and it would be a valid defence if you're right. I'm just pointing out that those who say "taxi driver's insurance will cover it" are ignoring the fact that they have recourse against someone else who they may consider to be negligent.

If my passenger damaged my car thru his stupidity (say he opened the door onto a lamppost), whilst I would be covered for my damage under my comp insurance, I don't have to go that route. I could sue him for the damage caused. He has the right to deny liability (he could say it serves me right for parking by a lamppost to let him out).

[rigga]

But you're not charging the passenger for a service of transportation, this may have a bearing if say part of the fare contributes to insurance.

No idea if it does but I think personal use and taxi for hire would be different circumstances when incidents like minor damage occurs.

[anonymous-user]

Eclassy said:

Absolutely nothing to do with your mate financially. Thats why there is taxi insurance. It should cover any reasonable third party damage caused by passengers. Your mate is too nice for offering to pay anything.

IANAL so this isnt gospel.

No, it's rubbish. As YANAL why don't you stop giving crappy legal advice? Just an idea!


May I mention those dread words personal responsibility? Adults are responsible for damage caused to the property of others through carelessness. Insurance may alleviate damage but does not replace liability.

[nick s]

Same. I'd be completely ignoring any further correspondence.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

rigga said:

But you're not charging the passenger for a service of transportation, this may have a bearing if say part of the fare contributes to insurance.

No idea if it does but I think personal use and taxi for hire would be different circumstances when incidents like minor damage occurs.

Again, you could be right. I don't know. But those saying "ignore/tell them to F.R.O." are idiots.

[dom9]

Breadvan72 said:

May I mention those dread words personal responsibility? Adults are responsible for damage caused to the property of others through carelessness. Insurance may alleviate damage but does not replace liability.

This was actually the answer I was expecting (and said he'd probably get) and he absolutely DOES accept responsibility for the 'accident' it's just that he is being charged what looks like quite a large sum for the 'damage'. Bearing in mind there was no visible damage (though it doesn't sound like he hung around for too long) and the parts were certainly intact - £300 + 'costs' seems a bit excessive.

rigga said:

But you're not charging the passenger for a service of transportation, this may have a bearing if say part of the fare contributes to insurance.

No idea if it does but I think personal use and taxi for hire would be different circumstances when incidents like minor damage occurs.

Now, he is willing to accept responsibility but before handing out £375 because he has been asked to, I guess he wanted to know whether this should be covered by the taxi insurance, as above. If it is not, I am sure he'll pay out of pocket or claim through his CC travel insurance or something. As a director of a company in the UK (a good, PH sort) - he doesn't want some sort of court problem because it sounds like it may be his word against theirs as to what damage was done.

I assume they would need to provide him with time stamped photos or something to prove when that damage occurred? Seems odd it has taken 6 months to come to this?! Should they not have given him quotes for the work and informed him of the damage at the time (well, a few days later when the insurer was involved and phoned him)? Could this figure be negotiated down?

[surveyor]

If he does not want to fight and has liability, but doubts the costs perhaps he should ask to see receipts and proof of loss of earnings. I highly doubt that a taxi driver would take a car off the road for this and would think it's far more likely to be repaired in his downtime.

Alternatively make a goodwill offer, without admitting liability in full and final settlement.

[anonymous-user]

Although some types of risk must by law be insured for the benefit of third parties who may be harmed by a potentially hazardous activity or situation, no one is obliged to claim on insurance, and in any event the existence of insurance does not remove the liability of someone who does something that constitutes the tort of negligence.

[dom9]

surveyor said:

If he does not want to fight and has liability, but doubts the costs perhaps he should ask to see receipts and proof of loss of earnings. I highly doubt that a taxi driver would take a car off the road for this and would think it's far more likely to be repaired in his downtime.

Alternatively make a goodwill offer, without admitting liability in full and final settlement.

Breadvan72 said:

Although some types of risk must by law be insured for the benefit of third parties who may be harmed by a potentially hazardous activity or situation, no one is obliged to claim on insurance, and in any event the existence of insurance does not remove the liability of someone who does something that constitutes the tort of negligence.

These are helpful, thanks chaps.

I have asked him to try and get more details as to who is claiming and what they are claiming for as without visible damage, I think it's the amount that doesn't sit well with me.

In your opinion Bv72 - Was he 'negligent' in this scenario? He reckons he even deliberately sat on the passenger side (in the back) to avoid LHD/ RHD issues (he's not excusing himself, think he's just embarrassed) so he wouldn't open the road side door or have to climb across.

[anonymous-user]

I can't say as I don't know enough about what happened. It could just have been bad luck, but there may be at least an arguable claim that the passenger didn't carefully check that the exit was clear before opening the door. Getting out on the live side was also arguably careless.