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

[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

[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?

[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.

[dom9]

Thanks chaps - Some good points to consider here and good questions to ask etc.

He certainly feels morally responsible for any damage HE caused. I think he wants to make a goodwill gesture (at the minimum) IF there was damage as he knows it was his fault but...

robdcfc said:

Sounds to me like the cabby has knocked his mirror off recently and remembered about your friend.

Saves a £300 bill.

Does seem odd that this bill has appeared 6 months later and there was no obvious damage of ANY type at the time (granted, the electronic adjustment etc could have failed due to impact, for example but that must be difficult to prove).

I haven't heard from him today so don't know anymore about who is claiming what but I'll let you know when I know!

[dom9]

Thanks chaps - all 'opinions' are considered and welcome... I won't take anything as gospel!

You've raised some good points such as 'why now' and get a detailed breakdown of costs. Will be interested to find out who has instructed the solicitor and I'll ask him if he can find out who the insurer is.

I haven't heard from him so I'm none the wiser at the moment! I think he's more than happy to 'pay his dues' - it just seems like a lot of money for 'no visible damage'. I genuinely think he would have sorted it then and there but the two drivers were making a bit of a scene (arguing with each other with neither seemingly annoyed at him), right outside his nice hotel, in front of the doorman (wonder if he remembers) so wanted to get inside after a long flight!

[dom9]

Eclassy said:

It is not unreasonable to open the door of a taxi infront of a hotel. It is unreasonable to open the door of a taxi travelling at 70mph on the M25.

I would say so but is he willing to let it go to court, as unlikely as they might be to pursue that recourse? I suspect not.

Thanks for the posts over night, chaps. Nothing from him in my inbox this morning!

Perhaps once he reminded them he lived abroad, they backed off and decided NOT to send anything? They don't have his home address, just his email, apparently!

A bit frustrating though as I'd definitely like to understand who is claiming against him. Anyway, he is prepared to ask them for all the details of the damage and invoice etc if/ when he hears from them!

[dom9]

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.

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.

[dom9]

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/

[dom9]

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!

[dom9]

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?

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,

[dom9]

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.

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.

[dom9]

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?

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]

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]

But he has NOT admitted it.

Opening the door and making contact with the wing mirror is on record with the insurer from the time of the accident...

It doesn't look possible that the door could even make contact with the front bumper (lower).

So, why is bumper damage (that wasn't present at the time) being claimed for?

Should he have denied it all and not given details?

What if they were claiming for damage to the opposite side of the car that couldn't be touched?

The bumper wasn't touched so why should he roll over and pay for it? Admitting opening the door and hitting the wing mirror isn't admitting to damaging a different part of the car that wasn't touched, surely?

So, it goes to court and he loses... What happens? Would that impact him being a director of a company, like a CCJ?

[dom9]

LoonR1 said:

But admitting opening the door is not the same as admitting the damage to the bumper.

The bit in bold says as much.

You haven't answered the questions. Does admitting opening the door mean he is responsible for any damage found on any part of the door?

As the bit in bold says - he hit the mirror (which looks to be the ONLY part the door could hit) and is being told he has damaged the bumper, which doesn't look possible.

So, how is admitting opening the door, with the express caveat that he only made contact with the mirror, admitting to damaging a different part of the car?

Again - what if he was claiming for, as an example, a boot respray? Because he said he opened the door into the mirror, he should pay for that?

[dom9]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Loon is right. He's admitted to opening the door and causing damage, so he's on a hiding to nothing trying to argue what damage he did and didn't do.

Why is he even dealing with this. Why hasn't he passed it on to his travel (he was coming back from Heathrow, possibly travel insurance in force) or his household insurance to deal with for him. They provide personal tp liability cover.

Now, that's a good question!

Will ask that!

However - he hasn't admitted damage... In fact, it was agreed at the scene there was no damage!

Surely if there is damage on a part of the car he didn't touch and stated he didn't touch - he can't be responsible?

I don't get this at all - no one will answer why, if 'damage' was found on a part of the car he didn't touch, he should be liable!

If I had a head-on crash with a car, would I be responsible for a dent on the boot that wasn't there at the time?

You guys are suggesting he rolls over and pays for damage he didn't cause - am I understanding that correctly?

[dom9]

Centurion07 said:

He shouldn't be liable for damage he didn't cause, however, the problem is the fact that he HAS admitted to making contact with the other vehicle, so unless he can categorically prove the damage he actually caused had nothing to do with any other damage, real or not, then it's going to be difficult to argue against.

With some effort I think it should be easy to prove that he couldn't possibly have done it. The door just doesn't look like it could have contacted the bumper, which is being claimed for. Could arrange for two cars of the same type to meet at the location and prove this!? Surely they must have some proof of the damage? The only thing that has been provided is a hand-written receipt a long time after the alleged damage was caused.

Surely he can't prove he didn't do it unless they provide details i.e. height of the damage so this can be matched to the door. They simply MUST give more details, no? The receipt says nothing about the damage just that some repair was performed.

He didn't touch the door/ wing so I guess it'll go to court and he'll pay if he loses! But yes, he'll want his day as why on Earth should he give someone £375 for something he, with certainty, didn't do?

photosnob said:

Whilst you are probably right in your argument that he may lose, he still shouldn't pay. However if someone admits to hitting my mirror and I say I need a new engine, you as an insurer would probably feel pretty comfortable. I'd say he was denying causing the damage they are claiming for. I therefore don't think it's as cut and dry as you are making out.

The chances of them sending lawyers to small claims court for £350 are small. Without being able to get costs back they will lose out either way. Therefore they have a reasonable chance of folding. Again as an insurer would you instruct solicitors to court over this for that much money?

The costs to him for letting it go to court for £350 are very small. Therefore he doesn't have a lot to lose.

And small claims court is always a gamble. If the judge sees him as the honest bloke who tried to put things right, and them as the company trying to rip him off he has a reasonable chance of winning.

At least let it run to mediation. I bet they would give a fair chunk of at that stage for them not to have to send solicitors to his local court.

Small claims court is usually in the little persons favour. It was designed to be like that. You only have to show it was more likely that you didn't cause that damage for you to win. They know this and are probably blowing smoke up your mates bum. I wouldn't pay a penny until I'd been told to by a county court judge.

This is what I was thinking, pretty much.

[dom9]

Thanks Photosnob - Will fire some of those questions back to him

Think we've just about covered everything for now chaps, I'll update this as I get more news!

[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)...