Passenger in my car hit neighbors car

triple-M

Well basically I dropped someone to their apartment yesterday,Next day Pulling into the same parking spot I notice the neighbors car(new) has a noticeable dent in it containing the same colour paint as my car.I ask the person I dropped off about it,and they admit they did it but didnt seem to really care.I have asked them to offer to pay for the damage or atleast leave a note on the windscreen owning up but they wont.Im just wondering what the worst outcome could be.Could I lose my no claims over this,or could either one of us end up in court?

coylemj

If your paint was left on the other car then your car was damaged as well. I'd be making your 'friend' cough up for the damage to your car.

MrThrifty

Nice 'n' simple -> Just stop giving your 'friend' lifts to their apartment!! If it's a girl/boy friend then sounds like ye aren't suited anyway!

triple-M

coylemj wrote: »

If your paint was left on the other car then your car was damaged as well. I'd be making your 'friend' cough up for the damage to your car.

Im not too bothered about my car as its getting scrapped as soon as the nct runs out,Im just wondering could I be made cough up for the damage to the other persons car.

coylemj

As the car owner you are ultimately liable so the answer is yes.

MagicSean

coylemj wrote: »

As the car owner you are ultimately liable so the answer is yes.

I disagree. If someone picks up your knife and stabs someone with it are you liable? The offence of criminal damage would fall on the passenger.

Marcusm

coylemj wrote: »

As the car owner you are ultimately liable so the answer is yes.

Unless the driver parked negligently such that the passenger had to cause the damage to exit the vehicle AND the passenger had made reasonable endeavours either to have the vehicle reparked or to exit without causing the damage, I do not see how this can be the case legally.

From a practical perspective, your neighbour may view you as the miscreant and chase you. Sounds like you should prepare to direct them to the other person.

coylemj

MagicSean wrote: »

I disagree. If someone picks up your knife and stabs someone with it are you liable?

I agree that it is not a general legal principle but under road traffic legislation, the owner of a vehicle is ultimately liable for injury to person or damage to property caused by the negligent use of the vehicle.

That's why if you allow an uninsured person to drive your car and there's an accident followed by a claim, the Motor Insurer's Bureau can pursue you (the owner) if they have to pay out.

MagicSean wrote: »

The offence of criminal damage would fall on the passenger.

I didn't think the OP was suggesting that the passenger deliberately damaged his neighbour's car.

MagicSean

coylemj wrote: »

I agree that it is not a general legal principle but under road traffic legislation, the owner of a vehicle is ultimately liable for injury to person or damage to property caused by the negligent use of the vehicle.

That's why if you allow an uninsured person to drive your car and there's an accident followed by a claim, the Motor Insurer's Bureau can pursue you (the owner) if they have to pay out.



I didn't think the OP was suggesting that the passenger deliberately damaged his neighbour's car.

This wasn't a road traffic accident. Neither car was in motion. And criminal damage can include recklessness too.

coylemj

MagicSean wrote: »

This wasn't a road traffic accident. Neither car was in motion.

Section 106 (the 'hit and run' section) of the RTA 1961 says nothing about vehicles being in motion, simply that a vehicle is 'involved' in the injury or damage....

106.—(1) Where injury is caused to person or property in a public place and a vehicle is involved in the occurrence of the injury (whether the use of the vehicle was or was not the cause of the injury), the following provisions shall have effect:

So a road traffic accident does not have to involve a vehicle or vehicles being in motion.

MagicSean wrote: »

And criminal damage can include recklessness too.

Try getting a criminal conviction for that - no chance. Sadly being a selfish or careless idiot is not yet a criminal offence in this country.

Marcusm

coylemj wrote: »

Section 106 (the 'hit and run' section) of the RTA 1961 says nothing about vehicles being in motion, simply that a vehicle is 'involved' in the injury or damage....

106.—(1) Where injury is caused to person or property in a public place and a vehicle is involved in the occurrence of the injury (whether the use of the vehicle was or was not the cause of the injury), the following provisions shall have effect:

So a road traffic accident does not have to involve a vehicle or vehicles being in motion.



Try getting a criminal conviction for that - no chance. Sadly being a selfish or careless idiot is not yet a criminal offence in this country.

No but as you've quoted it does need to be a "public place" which is unlikely toinclude an apartment carpark (and certainly not the spaces in the car park).

coylemj

Marcusm wrote: »

No but as you've quoted it does need to be a "public place" which is unlikely toinclude an apartment carpark (and certainly not the spaces in the car park).

He was able to drop someone off which implies that the gate was open for traffic to enter and leave which means it was open to the public 'with vehicles' and so was at the time a public place. If the management company tolerate non-residents and taxis driving in to pick up/set down then it is a public place for the purposes of the RTA. Whether you are prohibited from parking there is neither here nor there.

In any event, we're talking about civil liability so that issue doesn't really arise. I only quoted the RTA to answer MagicSean's assertion that you needed vehicles in motion to constitute a road traffic accident.

Kosseegan

Curley v Mannion,212 in 1965, the Supreme Court held that it might be negligence for the owner and driver of a car to permit his passenger to open a door without ensuring that other roadusers would thereby be endangered. In this case, the 13-year-old daughter of the driver opened a door in the path of a cyclist. Ó'Dálaigh, C.J. stated that, in his judgment: “a person in charge of a motor car must take resonable precautions for the safety of others, and this will include the duty to take reasonable care to prevent conduct on the part of passengers which is negligent. In the present case that duty is, it seems to me, reinforced by the relationship of parent and child; and a parent, while not liable for the torts of his child, may be liable if negligent in failing to exercise his control to prevent his child injuring others.”213
Walsh, J. considered that the steps which the person in charge of a car should take to protect others from injury must be determined in the light of the exact circumstances




of each case:
“In this case the defendant by reason of the fact that he was the parent of the tortious child could be held to have had an authority over the child. By reason of his proximity to the child he could be held to have been in a position to exercise that authority.”214

Reloc8

MagicSean wrote: »

This wasn't a road traffic accident. Neither car was in motion. And criminal damage can include recklessness too.

coylemj wrote: »

Try getting a criminal conviction for that - no chance. Sadly being a selfish or careless idiot is not yet a criminal offence in this country.

Eh ? Convictions for reckless criminal damage happen every day - where do you get this stuff from ?

Criminal Damage Act 1991

2.—(1) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

coylemj

Reloc8 wrote: »

Eh ? Convictions for reckless criminal damage happen every day - where do you get this stuff from ?

Criminal Damage Act 1991

2.—(1) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

For opening a car door and damaging a car in an adjacent parking spot?

Marcusm

coylemj wrote: »

He was able to drop someone off which implies that the gate was open for traffic to enter and leave which means it was open to the public 'with vehicles' and so was at the time a public place. If the management company tolerate non-residents and taxis driving in to pick up/set down then it is a public place for the purposes of the RTA. Whether you are prohibited from parking there is neither here nor there.

In any event, we're talking about civil liability so that issue doesn't really arise. I only quoted the RTA to answer MagicSean's assertion that you needed vehicles in motion to constitute a road traffic accident.

The OP said they were in a parking spot. Seeing as you've moved back to the civil law aspects, perhaps you'd consider the points in my original post entirely rebutting your original brusque comment.

coylemj

Marcusm wrote: »

The OP said they were in a parking spot. Seeing as you've moved back to the civil law aspects, perhaps you'd consider the points in my original post entirely rebutting your original brusque comment.

You've already made up your mind that you've rebutted anything I said which suggests that any reply would on my part would be futile so I'll leave you to wallow in your self-righteousness.

Marcusm

coylemj wrote: »

You've already made up your mind that you've rebutted anything I said which suggests that any reply would on my part would be futile so I'll leave you to wallow in your self-righteousness.

I suspect I'd exalt in self-righteousness rather than wallow but that would be a trite statement. My point is that the following is singularly unhelpful to the OP

"As the car owner you are ultimately liable so the answer is yes. "

coylemj

Marcusm wrote: »

I suspect I'd exalt in self-righteousness rather than wallow but that would be a trite statement. My point is that the following is singularly unhelpful to the OP

"As the car owner you are ultimately liable so the answer is yes. "

I apreciate that you were dealing with the questions that the OP asked in his original post, I was confining myself to a simple question he asked in post #4..

triple-M wrote: »

Im just wondering could I be made cough up for the damage to the other persons car.

To which I replied...

coylemj wrote: »

As the car owner you are ultimately liable so the answer is yes.

'Brusque' it might have been but it was a direct answer to a simple question.

Reloc8

coylemj wrote: »

For opening a car door and damaging a car in an adjacent parking spot?

The point is that a conviction for reckless criminal damage is perfectly straightforward, a point which you appear to have taken issue with - which is why I asked where you get these ideas from.

If you're in fact bemoaning the fact that there is not a criminal offence of negligent criminal damage so be it.

MrThrifty

??? Why is coylemj being ganged up on? They appear to be plainly and simply stating the facts, while questioning the, well, questionable?

Edit: Just noticed, coylemj's perhaps celebratory 5000th post could end up being wasted on this thread!

coylemj

MrThrifty wrote: »

??? Why is coylemj being ganged up on? They appear to be plainly and simply stating the facts, while questioning the, well, questionable?

Edit: Just noticed, coylemj's perhaps celebratory 5000th post could end up being wasted on this thread!

No MrTHrifty, I will dedicate it to you with my best wishes, enjoy!

Fighting Irish

I hate people who think it's somewhat ok to touch another car with their car door

Dublin_Gunner

MagicSean wrote: »

I disagree. If someone picks up your knife and stabs someone with it are you liable? The offence of criminal damage would fall on the passenger.

Its not about disagreeing. As the owner / driver of the car the OP is legally responsible / liable for any action his passenger may take that results in damage to another vehicle.

However, if the owner of the other vehicle were to sue, he would sue both the OP, and the passenger. Let the judge decide any apportionment.