[Kewtypie]

Hello

On the 14th of December I was loading my daughter 3, then my son (1) into their respective car seats on a residential street (daughter was pavement side which I did first). As I was loading my son in, when there was no traffic on the road, whilst standing on the outside of the vehicle but with my head in the vehicle, I heard a load bang. A man in his 70s had hyper-extended my rear driver side door on its hinges and scratched it. The door no longer closed properly.

He carries on driving but then pulled over shortly after. Hard to know if he would have if I had not chased him to the lights but equally there was no good place to stop initially.

He seemed to blame me for it and luckily I was recording the interaction. He says on video that "saw the door was open and tried to go around it, but then a car was coming on the other side and "my car is too big." ". This sounded like an admission of guilt. We duly exchanged insurance details

My car is towed as undrivable, his is scratched on multiple panels and lost the wing mirror but he drives home.

I do not have video proof and he and his insurers are now contesting liability, saying it is my fault and that I "opened the door into him". In my view if there is an obstruction in the road you wait until it is safe to pass.

I am pretty hacked off. I have been without a car over Xmas (until the repair estimate in the insurers won't release one), and my insurer are treating it as my fault. I am due to renew and they are refusing to do so as the premium will have doubled to being above their limit. 1

It is lucky I was not hit and my child is fine.

I have no CCTV footage and our friends were witnesses outside the vehicle.

My understanding is that damage to the inside of the door can prove key in these cases but not sure.

Car with the repair people now.

Any tips on how to proceed gratefully received. I am trying to get the insurers (admiral) to look at the video but they aren't as it is too big to upload to their portal and they don't seem to be able to click through on a link to download. I am tempted to start my own private case against him, surely the judge will see Sense?

[Drivingforfun]

TC will come along later I'm sure but I think you're right that he's admitted it on the video

Well either that or I've never realised that it's legal to drive into cars you think are too big!!!!

[TC1474]

The reason that the third party insurers will contest this is that they will believe that you have committed the offence of "Opening a door negligently"

The law states that -

It's illegal to open a car door into the path of any road user

The offense is covered by the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and the Road Traffic Act 1988

It is also an offence to open, cause or permit a door to be opened on a road where injury or damage could be caused.

So you can see where the third party are coming from, and I have dealt with a number of cases like this which has often resulted in the person opening the door to be held 100% liable but then an argument then follows to try and determine a degree of contributory negligence on the part of the third party.

But for the main part, I regret that you will be held primarily responsible regardless of how close the third party vehicle got to yours.

Sorry.

[olduser]

When our children were car seat age, I had a two door car.
The drill to load the children was to load from the kerb side, the outer child first (offside) then the inner child (nearside).
That way, there is no need to obstruct the traffic at all, and no risk.

Anyway at least the children were OK.

[olduser]

Originally Posted by TC1474

The reason that the third party insurers will contest this is that they will believe that you have committed the offence of "Opening a door negligently"

The law states that -

It's illegal to open a car door into the path of any road user

The offense is covered by the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and the Road Traffic Act 1988

It is also an offence to open, cause or permit a door to be opened on a road where injury or damage could be caused.

So you can see where the third party are coming from, and I have dealt with a number of cases like this which has often resulted in the person opening the door to be held 100% liable but then an argument then follows to try and determine a degree of contributory negligence on the part of the third party.

But for the main part, I regret that you will be held primarily responsible regardless of how close the third party vehicle got to yours.

Sorry.

I have never really understood if that is saying the act of opening the door (without checking) is the problem or obstructing the road by having a door open is the offence or both.

Have you ever put a case through the court that clarifies that?

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by olduser

I have never really understood if that is saying the act of opening the door (without checking) is the problem or obstructing the road by having a door open is the offence or both.

Have you ever put a case through the court that clarifies that?

It can be both and is both.

If a door is opened either into the path of another road using (regardless of whether they have checked or not) or the open door is simply an obstruction that can cause danger to others, the offence is complete.

[olduser]

Thank you TC1474, that makes sense now.

[Rolebama]

I would only add that you could fight the decision(s) reached by the insurers, but it would add to the time element in terms of a final decision. Personally, based on how you describe the incident, I would fight tooth and nail, in Court if necessary. There should be an address for you to send your digital evidence to.

[Kewtypie]

Thanks for your comments.

"Opening a door negligently", implies the action of opening. If the door is open already and stationary, and someone drives into it, it is my understanding that is another matter entirely.

This person saw the stationary door open with someone loading a child into a car seat. Thought they could go around it, misjudged because there was a car coming the other side and clipped it. It is not different to trying to go around any stationary part of the vehicle and misjudging it. My inclination is to fight this. Thanks all.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by Kewtypie

Thanks for your comments.

"Opening a door negligently", implies the action of opening. If the door is open already and stationary, and someone drives into it, it is my understanding that is another matter entirely.

This person saw the stationary door open with someone loading a child into a car seat. Thought they could go around it, misjudged because there was a car coming the other side and clipped it. It is not different to trying to go around any stationary part of the vehicle and misjudging it. My inclination is to fight this. Thanks all.

What the law actually says is:

"No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person."

Was any person injured or endangered?

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Kewtypie

Thanks for your comments.

"Opening a door negligently", implies the action of opening. If the door is open already and stationary, and someone drives into it, it is my understanding that is another matter entirely.

This person saw the stationary door open with someone loading a child into a car seat. Thought they could go around it, misjudged because there was a car coming the other side and clipped it. It is not different to trying to go around any stationary part of the vehicle and misjudging it. My inclination is to fight this. Thanks all.

The door was open, it was open into the carriageway, that is sufficient to complete the offence, and on that basis the third party insurers will hold you primarily liable with the possibility of awarding a degree of contributory negligence against the third party.

@ Beelzebub It does not have to cause personal injury, it is the "potential" that is sufficient or that it could possible cause endangerment.

Good luck in contesting it. I have dealt with many identical cases, so if you win, let me know as you will be the first.

[NMNeil]

@olduser
Plenty of case law, but bought by those injured by 'dooring'
Not an endorsement of this solicitor, it was just the first search return.

£70,000 for injured cyclist

Osbornes won substantial compensation for a client injured in a serious dooring incident. He was cycling on a quiet London road when a motorist opened their car door. Our client had no chance to avoid the collision and hit their face on the opened door, suffering serious facial fractures and leaving him with chronic pain. After an initial offer of £15,000 – we eventually won almost £70,000 compensation.

https://osborneslaw.com/personal-inj...s/car-dooring/

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

@olduser
Plenty of case law, but bought by those injured by 'dooring'
Not an endorsement of this solicitor, it was just the first search return.

£70,000 for injured cyclist

Osbornes won substantial compensation for a client injured in a serious dooring incident. He was cycling on a quiet London road when a motorist opened their car door. Our client had no chance to avoid the collision and hit their face on the opened door, suffering serious facial fractures and leaving him with chronic pain. After an initial offer of £15,000 – we eventually won almost £70,000 compensation.

https://osborneslaw.com/personal-inj...s/car-dooring/

I can give you many reported cases of a similar nature. It is one of the most common types of personal injury cases that law firms deal with, hence my comments earlier.

[Kewtypie]

Thank you for your thoughts and irrelevant references to dooring cases. Essentially you are saying, if one sees an open car door road-side 50m down the road, you can clatter into it with gay abandon without consequence, with little to no consideration for the person on the outside of the vehicle; all because it is a door, rather than any other part of the vehicle. Seems rather unlikely.

This case is different as there was a person outside the vehicle (me) who was nearly hit, I was stationary as was the door. Please can you elaborate how this would have been different if the car had hit me, my child and the door (it was about 10cm away from doing so), you would still find me at fault for loading my vehicle on the roadside?

I will of course be taking actual legal advice if the claim settles against me, but I just find it impossible to believe that the law can be structured in such a way.

I can fully understand the concept of a door in motion/ being opened with no time to react being a reason to be at fault, but quietly loading ones car seat on a residential street before some impatient 70 year who can't judge distances careering into the open door, nearly killing the person standing outside the vehicle and the child being loaded seems somewhat far fetched.

I guess you get what you pay for when it comes to free internet forum advice :D and I will of course keep you updated when I pay for actual advice.

[Kewtypie]

@Beelzebub no, clearly does not apply in this instance

[NMNeil]

@Kewtypie You joined this forum 4 days ago looking for free legal advice, so you got what you paid for, but now you're upset because you did'nt get the answers you wanted.
I hope it works out for you when you hire a solicitor.

[Kewtypie]

I am not in anyway upset, but I am rather surprised, particularly as my (albeit corporate) lawyer friends seemed to think it is a slamdunk on our side. Will keep you updated to ensure there is some sort of feedback loop for this echochamber

[olduser]

It will be interesting to see the outcome.

The interpretation of the law by TC1474 looks perfectly logical to me, the fault is with the parked (offending vehicle) but can be mitigated if the actions of the moving vehicles driver are judged not to be those of any other reasonable driver in that situation.
If that is the case, the insurers are likely to settle for 50/50 to avoid the costs of taking it to court.

Good luck.