Who's Fault Is It? Who Should Pay?

[Rafael]

A taxi stopped at the left side of a road alighting passenger.

The passenger opened the door on the right, without warning a motorbike came along knocking the right opening passenger door, causing damages to the door as well as to the motorbike.

Who is at fault?
Who should be responsible for the damages? :think::dunno:

1. The taxi driver; and/or
2. The passenger; and/or
3. The motorbike rider.

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

Nobody, just claim insurance... simplest...

Think long time ago, during secondary school time, my fren came over, in a cab, same thing happened... tis motor bike try to squeeze in between the lane (happen so my place is 1 way street, friend alight opposite side, hence exit from the right side of the vehicle)

In your case

Taxi fault = never tell passenger can or cannot open the door as he has to look out for traffic
Passenger fault = never look before open the door
Motorbike fault = y go near a stationary taxi knowing that its possible that the door might swing open any time?

 

[antacid]

i think it will probably be the passenger's fault. but because it's the driver's taxi, driver will have to pay. then it's up to the driver to seek compensation from the passenger.

i had a friend who broke his fingers when a driver opened his door at a traffic light. the driver's seatbelt was stuck in the door so he opened it without checking. my friend clipped the door and broke his fingers. compensation was $20k for "pain & suffering" plus lot's more for loss of income etc etc.

 

[hanafi]

There is no such thing as "without warning". You should not alight from the right unless you are very sure the coast is clear. I hope the motorcyclist is not seriously injured because it is not his fault at all.

 

[Rafael]

Nobody, just claim insurance... simplest...

Claiming insurance may pose a problem also, who should claim whose insurance.
There are only 2 parties who have insurance cover for 3rd party damages on road accidents - taxi and motorbike.

Does that mean passenger has no liability?

Or is it fair to say damages should be shared among all the 3 parties?
If so, what should be the proportion?
33.33% each?

On the other hand, parties involved may not wish to claim insurance because of No Claim Discount (NCD) on the insurance premium, especially one may have accumulated 50% NCD.

 

[Rafael]

....... I hope the motorcyclist is not seriously injured because it is not his fault at all.

The rider braked on time but still hit the door and dented it, and some parts of his bike broke, no injury though. :sweat:

 

[megaweb]

Who is at fault?

1. The taxi driver; and/or
2. The passenger; and/or
3. The motorbike rider.

All of them
1. The taxi driver should warn the passenger not to go out from right side
2. The passenger should check behind vehicle if he insist to go from right side
3. The motorbike rider should keep a safety distance to the stationary car

Who should be responsible for the damages?

Tricky part :think:

1. The taxi driver claims no time to warn as the passenger went out too fast
2. The passenger has nothing to defend, confirmed at fault
3. The motorbike rider claims no time to avoid as the door open widely and knocked him

 

[Big Kahuna]

Why not report police or consult lawyer? There is upfront premium but I think it's worthwhile if it's not too costly....just to get his back side cover :sweat:

 

[Rafael]

Why not report police or consult lawyer? There is upfront premium but I think it's worthwhile if it's not too costly....just to get his back side cover :sweat:

1. Making police report is asking for more trouble probably to all the 3 parties IF police investigation found that all 3 parties are liable and found negligence for the happening of the accident. All parties will get tickets from the traffic police. Don't involve police unnecessarily. :nono:

2. Consult lawyer? Never cheap, probably cost more than the damages itself.

BTW, police does not interfere with insurance claims and personal compensation, the only reason where police concluded report is used positively is for insurance to use it as evident to fight the case.

 

[cervello]

Eh, nobody knows the word, Subrogation meh?

 

[drakon09]

Well, since there's no injury involved, all parties may just report the accident to IDAC and let the independent assessors decide.

 

[Rafael]

Well, since there's no injury involved, all parties may just report the accident to IDAC and let the independent assessors decide.

Sorry IDAC assess and record damages only, they don't get involve in deciding who's fault.

 

[Rafael]

If not settled, most likely situation would be:

Taxi claims from passenger & bike.
Bike claims from taxi & passenger.
Passenger no claim, nothing lost only defends. :bsmilie:

 

[nikkie]

It is a simple case, with many precedent judgements all over the world.
The duty of care is 99% on the alighting passenger. Passenger pays everything. (Even when claiming insurance, subrogation of rights allow the insurance company to claim full costs against the passenger-at insurance co.'s discretion/terms of insurance of the taxi co. of course. Likewise for the motorcycle and any injuries to its rider)

It is against traffic rules for passengers (sometimes apply to private cars too) to not alight from the kerb side of a stationary vehicle in several countries-China, Vietnam..etc . (in the case of PRC, most taxis' back passenger right doors cannot be opened from inside, forcing all passengers to get on/alight on the kerbside.)
In some countries, it can attract summon if spotted by traffic police, even though there is no accident or damage.

 

[WuffRuff]

It is a simple case, with many precedent judgements all over the world.
The duty of care is 99% on the alighting passenger. Passenger pays everything. (Even when claiming insurance, subrogation of rights allow the insurance company to claim full costs against the passenger-at insurance co.'s discretion/terms of insurance of the taxi co. of course. Likewise for the motorcycle and any injuries to its rider)

Agreed. This passenger is a MORON.
Some people said it's the taxi driver's fault as he should warn the passenger. Excuse me, is your passenger blind or under the age of three? How is it that he is not aware of the simple fact that vehicles can move on a road so he has to check that the road is clear. How come he hasn't been knocked down by a vehicle when crossing the road yet, I wonder. If the passenger is blind, then it is definitely the driver's responsibility to tell the passenger which side to alight.

Some people said the rider should keep a safe distance from the taxi. That's indeed true. But we are not talking abt a front/back accident. In this case, as long as you are in the next lane, you will get hit by the side door swinging out. Unless you are at least half into the next lane, which will be against traffic regulations. And also, as passengers should not alight by the road side, the rider is not expected to foresee that the door might swing open suddenly.

Passengers should not alight by the road side actually. But taxi drivers usually close one eye (as to everything else) and allow passengers to alight if the road is clear. And it is the passenger's obligation to check that the road is clear. Just tell me, who is alighting? Who will die if get knocked over? Who is responsible for your life?

 

[GavinTing]

If i remember, once police get involved,NCD gone ler..

Should be passenger's fault. Taxi and motorbike no fault at all..

The passenger could have killed the motorbike rider!

BEsides, who alights on the right side?!?

 

[Dovedo]

For the major taxi companies such as SMRT, there are stickers pasted on the side of the doors or at the back of seats telling passengers to watch out for traffic before they exit, so even if the taxi driver has not told them to check for oncoming traffic before they exit, the passengers should have enough brains and brawn to either read the simple english and/or understand simple signs, thereafter that make an intelligent decision as to whether to get out the right door or by the other side depending on whether there is any on-coming traffic.

Btw I don't see why a passenger would want to get out by the side which has on-coming traffic unless he/she has left his/her brains at home.

And TS, are you involved in a similar situation like this? :think: Wondering why u started this thread leh.

 

[jeagga]

If I'm not wrong, any vehicle overtaking another or even pedestrian or any other stationary object should keep a minimum safe distance of 1 metre from their vehicle.

So if that motorbike keep that 1 metre distance, I think he/she could have avoided hitting the door even if it is wide open.

So for me, motorbike at fault.

 

[rvxing]

If I'm not wrong, any vehicle overtaking another or even pedestrian or any other stationary object should keep a minimum safe distance of 1 metre from their vehicle.

So if that motorbike keep that 1 metre distance, I think he/she could have avoided hitting the door even if it is wide open.

So for me, motorbike at fault.

Agreed, a lot of biker like to squeeze in between the lanes and endanger their own life. In many western countries, bikers will keep to the center of the lane and safety distance like the cars. In this case, the biker must be very close to the taxi, not even close to the other lane bcos the taxi had gone to the left side of the road and S'pore roads (lanes) typically are very wide.

Of course, the passenger is also at fault for not looking out for traffic before opening the right door.

 

[rvxing]

If not settled, most likely situation would be:

Taxi claims from passenger & bike.
Bike claims from taxi & passenger.
Passenger no claim, nothing lost only defends. :bsmilie:

Did the biker or the taxi driver take down the particulars of the passenger? If the passenger had walked away, nothing to claim against and defend :bsmilie::bsmilie: