Responsibility for minor opening car door
Invisible Man
Car next to ours was apparently picking up a minor from school. Said
minor approached other car and yanked osr door open straight into the
side of wife's car causing a surprisingly large dent in the wheel arch.
I would guess the schoolgirl involved was aged about 12. The female
driver was in the car throughout.
Is the driver liable for the damage?
I spent a lot of years handling insurance claims but never really came
across the liability of minors or those in charge of motor vehicles.
TIA for any responses.
David McNeish
> Is the driver liable for the damage?
As far as I can see the only party who has been negligent is the 12
year old.
Ste
> I was sitting in my wife's parked car in a supermarket car park.
>
> Car next to ours was apparently picking up a minor from school. Said
> minor approached other car and yanked osr door open straight into the
> side of wife's car causing a surprisingly large dent in the wheel arch.
>
> I would guess the schoolgirl involved was aged about 12. The female
> driver was in the car throughout.
>
> Is the driver liable for the damage?
No.
> I spent a lot of years handling insurance claims but never really came
> across the liability of minors or those in charge of motor vehicles.
And there's a good reason why you never came across such a claim!
Children without assets can act with virtual impunity as far as the
civil law is concerned.
D.M. Procida
> > Car next to ours was apparently picking up a minor from school. Said
> > minor approached other car and yanked osr door open straight into the
> > side of wife's car causing a surprisingly large dent in the wheel arch.
> >
> > I would guess the schoolgirl involved was aged about 12. The female
> > driver was in the car throughout.
> >
> > Is the driver liable for the damage?
>
> No.
>
> > I spent a lot of years handling insurance claims but never really came
> > across the liability of minors or those in charge of motor vehicles.
>
> And there's a good reason why you never came across such a claim!
> Children without assets can act with virtual impunity as far as the
> civil law is concerned.
One of my children did the something similar to our car a few years ago.
Why couldn't it have been the council's lamp post that got dented
instead?
Anyway, can I just wait till he's 18 and then submit a claim against
him? Or should I serve him with notice of the forthcoming demand? He
won't be 18 for a few years, so of course I am a bit anxious that time
will run out.
Daniele
Ian Jackson
Invisible Man <Invi...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Is the driver liable for the damage?
Perhaps. If someone can find a copy of s98 of the Construction and
Use Regulations, perhaps we will be able to say for sure.
See Highway Code s239 6th bullet point, about opening doors.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Iain
Would the cost of repairs therefore be against the girl, her parents, or
would it not be pursuable?
If it is not pursuable, then it does not give a very good message about
responsibility or consequence of careless actions.
--
Iain
Him & Her
news:0-h*Ce...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article <i7vvu0$2tm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Invisible Man <Invi...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>Is the driver liable for the damage?
>
> Perhaps. If someone can find a copy of s98 of the Construction and
> Use Regulations, perhaps we will be able to say for sure.
>
> See Highway Code s239 6th bullet point, about opening doors.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069860
<Q>it is safer for your passengers (especially children) to get out of the
vehicle on the side next to the kerb</Q>
OP said they were getting in, not out.
It's always been my belief that the driver of a vehicle is responsible for
the actions of those using their vehicle ( i.e. the passengers ).
Regards,
Invisible Man
liability.
So far I have been unable to identify anything on vicarious liability of
a driver for acts of minor passengers.
David McNeish
> "Ian Jackson" <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> > See Highway Code s239 6th bullet point, about opening doors.
>
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069860
>
> <Q>it is safer for your passengers (especially children) to get out of the
> vehicle on the side next to the kerb</Q>
Which is more about the safety of the passenger than other vehicles -
and irrelevant anyway as we're talking about a car park.
> It's always been my belief that the driver of a vehicle is responsible for
> the actions of those using their vehicle ( i.e. the passengers ).
On what basis?
David McNeish
> Would the cost of repairs therefore be against the girl, her parents, or
> would it not be pursuable?
Against the girl, though as mentioned below she may be covered by the
vehicle's insurance.
Him & Her
news:044e6ca7-7d71-4765...@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On the basis that I was told, by a bobby, 30+ years ago that I was
responsible for the actions of my passenger. As I said, "it's always been my
belief". I wasn't stating it as fact but it seems perfectly reasonable to me
that a driver is responsible for a vehicle and *all* those that use it along
with any items in, or attached, to it.
Regards,
Ste
> David McNeish <david...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm afraid bobbies often express opinions on legal matters that are
actually quite wrong. A driver is responsible for the vehicle, insofar
as he must not use the vehicle in a negligent manner. But there is no
question that a driver, or a parent, is responsible for a 12 year old
child opening the door a bit too enthusiastically. Ultimately, the
child themselves are responsible in this type of situation.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Anyway, can I just wait till he's 18 and then submit a claim
> against him? Or should I serve him with notice of the
> forthcoming demand? He won't be 18 for a few years, so of course
> I am a bit anxious that time will run out.
My guess is that if you are prohibited against suing him due to his
age, the statute of limitations doesn't begin to run until you can
actually sue him. At least that's the way it works where I am.
Chris R
news:Xns9E034D9457848s...@130.133.4.11...
you would win and whether the minor could pay the claim are different
matters). Therefore the limitation period runs, and could well expire before
the child attains the age of 18. It does work the other way round -
limitation periods generally do not run against a minor, so he or she can
wait until the age of 18 before suing.
Chris R
Invisible Man
No guarantee that an 18 year old would have any money if it were
practicable to pursue then.
I have discovered I have a legal advice line with my home insurance.
They reckon it could go either way if I held the driver vicariously
liable for the youngsters efforts.
The door was wrenched open hard into our car with no effort to slow it
before impact. The child then calmly got into the car and acted as if it
were perfectly normal.
I could try alleging that that the driver should have been out of the
car ensuring the door was used suitable.
Hopefully the driver will simply pay up or refer it to her insurers and
ask them to deal with the claim against the passenger.
I have managed to get a reasonably low estimate of just under £300 and
will try and find out what what the driver's intentions are tomorrow.
Percy Picacity
news:719d5953-35a0-4eb2-9317-3855a2c3c9f4
@m15g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
m:
> On 30 Sep, 15:10, "Him & Her" <contact...@group.ok> wrote:
>> David McNeish <david...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:044e6ca7-7d71-4765-853d-5e2384993f33
@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups
>> .com...
Suppose a parent gave a child unsupervised and uninstructed use of a
felling axe. I suspect they might well be responsible for at least
some of the resulting mayhem. On the same basis, could a parent not
be responsible if they allow a child unsupervised and uninstructed
to use a car door which is well known to be extremely likely to
damage another car in a car park if not handled properly? A defence
might be that the parent had instructed the child in the safe
opening of the door, but my experience of supermarket car parks
suggests that many drivers, especially female, are hardly aware of
the danger themselves.
--
Percy Picacity
David McNeish
> On the same basis, could a parent not
> be responsible if they allow a child unsupervised and uninstructed
> to use a car door which is well known to be extremely likely to
> damage another car in a car park if not handled properly?
Maybe, but how much supervision do you think the average 12 year old
needs in the operation of a car door?
Invisible Man
> Ste<ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:719d5953-35a0-4eb2-9317-3855a2c3c9f4
> @m15g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
> m:
>
little further away from the shops to avoid the risk of such damage. I
am a defensive driver although I didn't manage to avoid the driver that
crashed into the back of the same car just over 2 months ago.
Ste
>
> I could try alleging that that the driver should have been out of the
> car ensuring the door was used suitable.
Do you honestly think that it is reasonable to expect adults to have
to open a car door for a 12 year old? I think not.
> Hopefully the driver will simply pay up or refer it to her insurers and
> ask them to deal with the claim against the passenger.
>
> I have managed to get a reasonably low estimate of just under £300 and
> will try and find out what what the driver's intentions are tomorrow.
Perhaps if the driver is the parent of the child and they have some
integrity, and can afford £300 with little difficulty, then they will
pay out of their own pocket.
The Todal
"Invisible Man" <invi...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:i7vvu0$2tm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I think others have already answered this, but anyway I'll give my view. The
child is old enough to know better and is liable for her actions. The
insurance policy will (I think) cover the actions of car passengers. Write
to the registered owner (or parents) and point out that the child has
negligently caused damage and suggest that the claim be referred to the
motor insurers.
Or of course, claim off your own insurance and let your insurers deal with
seeking a recovery but there is likely to be an excess payable by you (which
you would want them to claim on your behalf but may actually be most of the
cost of repair) and your NCD may be affected.
The driver or parent is not *vicariously* liable for the actions of the
child but in some circumstances might be independently negligent - there is
a case where a cab driver was held negligent for stopping to allow the
passenger to disembark in an area where the door would be likely to be
opened into the path of traffic.
The Todal
"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9E034D9457848s...@130.133.4.11...
I am always very interested in your views, Stuart. In England, though, a
minor can be sued but his negligence will be judged on the basis of his age
and the behaviour to be expected from someone of that age. The Scottish
courts are actually more severe, and say that very young children, even six
years old, can be held contributorily negligent.
To go slightly off topic, I was in Boston very recently and observed that
the pavements and roads are in a really bad state, compared with the
standards of English highways. Paving slabs are missing, drain covers
project by more than an inch. In England pedestrians regularly sue local
authorities for injuries sustained when tripping on highways and that is a
big incentive to get the highways repaired. In America which we generally
view as the land of litigation, are local authorities somehow exempt from
liability for the state of their highways? Or does it vary from state to
state?
Ste
> Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>
> Suppose a parent gave a child unsupervised and uninstructed use of a
> felling axe. I suspect they might well be responsible for at least
> some of the resulting mayhem.
It depends how the mayhem was caused. If the axe was handed over for a
legitimate purpose, with which the child was familiar, then you would
not expect the average 12 year old to need close supervision.
> On the same basis, could a parent not
> be responsible if they allow a child unsupervised and uninstructed
> to use a car door which is well known to be extremely likely to
> damage another car in a car park if not handled properly?
Oh come on Percy. As I asked the Invisible Man, are you really saying
that parents must open and close the car doors for their teenage
children? Many everyday things can cause damage if not handled
properly, or if wilfully mishandled, but it's absurd to say that
parents can be expected to control all of these things. Accidents do
happen, and even grown adults have opened their car doors into mine.
Obviously, I've explained previously how society has no interest in
making parents strictly liable for their children, and I'm afraid I
don't accept that parents can be reasonably expected to literally hold
the door open for their older children getting in and out of the car.
Incidentally, I don't have kids myself, but if a child of mine dented
a car door, I'd certainly be very sorry, but I must admit that I'd
have to think carefully before I'd offer to pay out several hundred
pounds for its repair.
> A defence
> might be that the parent had instructed the child in the safe
> opening of the door, but my experience of supermarket car parks
> suggests that many drivers, especially female, are hardly aware of
> the danger themselves.
If anyone is liable, then arguably the supermarket is, for placing the
spaces so close. Exercising reasonable care, I often find that I need
to place my door against the panel of the car next to me in order to
have enough space to get in and out of the car.
Clive George
> Incidentally, I don't have kids myself, but if a child of mine dented
> a car door, I'd certainly be very sorry, but I must admit that I'd
> have to think carefully before I'd offer to pay out several hundred
> pounds for its repair.
Most people with any money do carry insurance for such eventualities -
my parents made a claim on household insurance for when I caused a few
hundred quids worth of damage to a car.
Martin Bonner
> To go slightly off topic, I was in Boston very recently and observed that
> the pavements and roads are in a really bad state, compared with the
== "sidewalks and pavements" in the US.
> standards of English highways. Paving slabs are missing, drain covers
> project by more than an inch. In England pedestrians regularly sue local
> authorities for injuries sustained when tripping on highways and that is a
> big incentive to get the highways repaired. In America which we generally
> view as the land of litigation, are local authorities somehow exempt from
> liability for the state of their highways? Or does it vary from state to
> state?
There are large parts of the US, where they essentially don't have
pedestrians.
zaax
Why, just hand it over to your insurance co and let them get on with it - It's what they are paid for
--
---
zaax
Frustration casues accidents: allow faster traffic to overtake.
Ste
Perhaps that's what I'd do then, but if that option wasn't available
then I'd be inclined to say that paying a fortune to repair mere
aesthetic damage merely encourages the proliferation of such risks. If
a person knows that their shiny Ferrari can be parked in the
supermarket with impunity, then that merely encourages them to take
the risk, rather than leave the Ferrari at home (or in the showroom),
and drive something less expensive to the supermarket where children
may be found.
Invisible Man
It is a 2 seater but only a Mazda. Being the careful person I am I had
parked the car in an empty area of car park some way from the store to
avoid any such damage.
Ste
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying you're to blame in this
case. As I've said, the other guilty culprits are the people who lay
out the car park, and the manufacturers who build such flimsy panels.
But fundamentally, people are taking fragile goods into an area where
they are liable to get damaged accidentally, and when the cost of
making good is measured in the high-hundreds, there is a case for
saying that people must simply accept the damage as a kind of normal
wear and tear.
Incidentally, have you ever noticed how many people with cars have a
"herding instinct"? You can park at the farthest reaches of an empty
car park, and be sure that someone will soon park right next to you.
Invisible Man
We are contemplating moving to Spain and will either manage without a
car or get a bumper car.
I expect to get the odd ding in a car park. Used to have a parking space
beside an overweight senior manager. My driver's door had more
corrugations than an an old Citroen van. On this occasion the kid threw
the door open, probably as hard as she could, and it is quite a dent
right on a pronounced angular wheel arch.
Percy Picacity
a602-087...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
If the parents had never told her to open the door carefully to avoid
hitting the next car I would not necessarily expect a 12 year old to
think of that on her own.
--
Percy Picacity
Stuart A. Bronstein
> To go slightly off topic, I was in Boston very recently and
> observed that the pavements and roads are in a really bad state,
> compared with the standards of English highways. Paving slabs
> are missing, drain covers project by more than an inch. In
> England pedestrians regularly sue local authorities for injuries
> sustained when tripping on highways and that is a big incentive
> to get the highways repaired. In America which we generally view
> as the land of litigation, are local authorities somehow exempt
> from liability for the state of their highways? Or does it vary
> from state to state?
Local authorities aren't exempt, but they are not strictly liable.
Negligence has to be shown. In addition, under the "American
rule" prevailing litigants don't normally get their attorneys fees
back as part of a judgment. So if there isn't enough money
involved, a municipality's resolution to fight a case as vigorously
as they can (even when they know they are in the wrong) discourages
all but fairly large claims.
Several years ago New York passed an ordinance saying that they
would not be liable for any damages caused by road conditions
unless they had been specifically notified in advance of the
problem. Within two weeks they were unundated with more than a
million notifications of road and sidewalk defects.
steve robinson
Accidentally or not its still possibly negligent , claim off her car
insurance
steve robinson
Something similar happened in Birmingham , they set up a hotline to
report road defects the list reported needed about 20 years to fix
and as they are now aware of them the LA are responsible for any
accidents resulting from these defects
Humbug
>I'm afraid bobbies often express opinions on legal matters that are
>actually quite wrong
That has been my experience in every case.
New constables are often enthusiastic, but do not always realise that
they do not know any more about the law of the land than members of
the public.
I can remember an occasion when I told a young PC exactly why he
shouldn't have stopped me, and noticed the sergeant who was standing a
short distance away saying nothing, but struggling to keep from
laughing.
Wearing the uniform doesn't automatically transform you into Judge
Dredd.
--
Humbug
JMS
wrote:
<snip>
>It's always been my belief that the driver of a vehicle is responsible for
>the actions of those using their vehicle ( i.e. the passengers ).
>
>Regards,
>
There was a discussion in the cycling newsgroups about the
responsibility of the driver of a vehicle when a passenger opened a
rear door and knocked a cyclist off their bike.
Many cyclists tended to argue that the driver was in law responsible
for the accident - with some I think it was wishful thinking.
I for one disagreed - and no-one could produce any legislation or case
history or reports to back up that point of view
One ex-policeman insisted that he had personally arrested, charged,
and over saw the prosecution and finding guilty of a driver who
"allowed" this to happen.
I said in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I did not
believe him.
sid
But the driver is responsible for a child under 14 not wearing a
seatbelt, so why not opening a door and causing damage?
Mark
I'd hope by 12 they would be able to work that out by themselves.
Although children do often act first before thinking.
This problem is compounded by supermarkets not making their parking
spaces large enough. I regularly find new scratches and even dents in
my car after leaving it parked. However I have not witnessed these
incidents and no-one ever owns up :-(
Whatever the situation the OP should not be out of pocket for this
incident.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
Mark Goodge
>Ste wrote:
>>
>> I'm afraid bobbies often express opinions on legal matters that are
>> actually quite wrong. A driver is responsible for the vehicle, insofar
>> as he must not use the vehicle in a negligent manner. But there is no
>> question that a driver, or a parent, is responsible for a 12 year old
>> child opening the door a bit too enthusiastically. Ultimately, the
>> child themselves are responsible in this type of situation.
>
>But the driver is responsible for a child under 14 not wearing a
>seatbelt, so why not opening a door and causing damage?
Because the law explicitly makes the driver responsible for a child under
14 not wearing a seatbelt.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk