Crashed bike avoiding taxi door

kylith

I was cycling to work this morning when the female passenger of a taxi opened the back door. I swerved to avoid it and due to the combination of abrupt swerve, road surface, and damp conditions the bike flipped and I wound up in hospital.

Thankfully I wasn't badly injured; soft tissue damage and broken teeth, and am now at home.

My question is; is the taxi in any way liable, will their insurance go any way to covering the hospital bill, or are they likely to claim that I co-incidentally fell off my bike next to the car and it was nothing to do with them?

Allinall

kylith wrote: »

I was cycling to work this morning when the female passenger of a taxi opened the back door. I swerved to avoid it and due to the combination of abrupt swerve, road surface, and damp conditions the bike flipped and I wound up in hospital.

Thankfully I wasn't badly injured; soft tissue damage and broken teeth, and am now at home.

My question is; is the taxi in any way liable, will their insurance go any way to covering the hospital bill, or are they likely to claim that I co-incidentally fell off my bike next to the car and it was nothing to do with them?

They certainly won't voluntarily admit liability.

It will be up to you to prove negligence.

Was the passenger getting out on the keen side or on to the road?

Could you have reasonably expected the door to open, given it was a taxi and stopped?

hullaballoo

^^^Doesn't matter what side the passenger was getting out.

OP, you will need to speak to a legal professional regarding this but hopefully people will be able to offer some practical guidance to you.

Don't deal with any insurance companies etc. in relation to this, unless you have health insurance, in which case, they may be able to pay something towards your own solicitor.

goz83

Slightly OT, but similar scenario,

Who is likely liable if a bin company empties a residential wheelie bin and leaves the wheelie bin on a cycle lane (as opposed to the original position against a garden wall) where a teenage cyclist then collides into the bin?

1) The Bin Company

2) The Householder/Customer

3) The Cyclist

4) All of the above share blame

seamus

goz83 wrote: »

Slightly OT, but similar scenario,

Who is likely liable if a bin company empties a residential wheelie bin and leaves the wheelie bin on a cycle lane (as opposed to the original position against a garden wall) where a teenage cyclist then collides into the bin?

1) The Bin Company

2) The Householder/Customer

3) The Cyclist

4) All of the above share blame

if the bin was in a dangerous position where the cyclist would have been unable to see it, then the bin company is liable. If the bin would have been well visible and the cyclist simply wasn't paying enough attention, then they would be at fault.

Allinall

goz83 wrote: »

Slightly OT, but similar scenario,

Who is likely liable if a bin company empties a residential wheelie bin and leaves the wheelie bin on a cycle lane (as opposed to the original position against a garden wall) where a teenage cyclist then collides into the bin?

1) The Bin Company

2) The Householder/Customer

3) The Cyclist

4) All of the above share blame

If common sense was to prevail, then the cyclist would be 100% to blame.

Why would you cycle into something you can clearly see in front of you?

Canadel

Allinall wrote: »

If common sense was to prevail, then the cyclist would be 100% to blame.

Why would you cycle into something you can clearly see in front of you?

Where do they say that the bin was clearly visible in front of the cyclist?

Allinall

Canadel wrote: »

Allinall wrote: »

If common sense was to prevail, then the cyclist would be 100% to blame.

Why would you cycle into something you can clearly see in front of you?

Where do they say that the bin was clearly visible in front of the cyclist?

In what possible scenario would it not be visible?

whippet

Motorists have to give clearance to parked cars to allow for unexpected door openings. I would contend that cyclists should also.

A reasonable person should expect that a taxi door may open and as such should approach in a manner where an expected occurance wouldn't end up in an accident.

My view is that the OP wasn't cycling with due care and attention and as such is responsible for their own injuries

Mrs OBumble

Canadel wrote: »

Where do they say that the bin was clearly visible in front of the cyclist?

If the cyclist wad not able to stop in the visible distance in front of them, then they were travelling too fast for the conditions.

Gael23

You need to get some proper legal advice. My own opinion is that you should have taken care to notice she was going to open the door but only a solicitor can say for sure.
Were the guards called? A statement of the incident will help a legal case.

goz83

seamus wrote: »

if the bin was in a dangerous position where the cyclist would have been unable to see it, then the bin company is liable. If the bin would have been well visible and the cyclist simply wasn't paying enough attention, then they would be at fault.

Thanks. Although there are few imaginable scenarios where bins would not be visible on a cycle path, save for the brown bins being a similar colour to the cycle path and being less visible to the cyclist.

Allinall wrote: »

If common sense was to prevail, then the cyclist would be 100% to blame.

Why would you cycle into something you can clearly see in front of you?

There are a few scenarios which come to mind. Most would be to avoid hitting an unexpected moving obstacle, such as a person, or animal stepping out in front of you, or a vehicle coming up quickly behind the cyclist, or turning out from a junction without having proper observation of their surroundings. In those scenarios, colliding with bins would seem to be the safer option.

Canadel wrote: »

Where do they say that the bin was clearly visible in front of the cyclist?

That's right. I didn't say that they were clearly visible. Peoples imaginations are great at assuming things that were not said.

Allinall wrote: »

In what possible scenario would it not be visible?

Poor weather, sunny, or rainy. A sharp bend. At the far side of a steep dip of a hill. Bins being same/similar colour as road, or cycle path, especially if someone is colour blind.



To elaborate on my first post, the scenario would have been hitting the bins to avoid a potentially more lethal result, such as avoiding hitting a car, or a pedestrian. In my view, bins should be left back from where they were taken, which is usually right up against the customers garden wall. Ideally the bins should be left inside the garden, so as not to obstruct the pathway. They should definitely not be left on a road, or a cycle lane, where they are a hazard. It doesn't take a very strong wind to blow an empty bin into the path of a motorist, so they should be left in a safe place, which adds a couple of seconds per bin lift, maybe totalling an extra few minutes of work at the same pace.


In the OP, I would say that the passenger and by extension, the taxi driver was liable. I am not a fan of the behavior and sense of entitlement displayed by many cyclists, but they are entitled to have unobstructed use of a designated cycle lane. A door opening into a cycle lane without first checking for clearance, or an object being left in a cycle lane is unacceptable imo.

Sleeper12

goz83 wrote:

Who is likely liable if a bin company empties a residential wheelie bin and leaves the wheelie bin on a cycle lane (as opposed to the original position against a garden wall) where a teenage cyclist then collides into the bin?

goz83 wrote:

Slightly OT, but similar scenario,

goz83 wrote:

1) The Bin Company

goz83 wrote:

2) The Householder/Customer

goz83 wrote:

4) All of the above share blame

goz83 wrote:

3) The Cyclist

This situation is very different to the one posted by op. I hear what you are saying but unless you had a witness seeing bin truck worker leave the bin and walk away there wouldn't be a case.
Assuming op was watching where they were going & the door of the taxi suddenly opens then it's the taxi drivers fault. He is responsible for his own vehicle & it's passengers.
I'd hate to see taxis insurance go sky high for a small claim but he has the option to pay hospital costs and possibly a new bike without going through the insurance.

Kat1170

goz83 wrote: »

That's right. I didn't say that they were clearly visible. Peoples imaginations are great at assuming things that were not said.

goz83 wrote: »

In the OP, I would say that the passenger and by extension, the taxi driver was liable. I am not a fan of the behavior and sense of entitlement displayed by many cyclists, but they are entitled to have unobstructed use of a designated cycle lane. A door opening into a cycle lane without first checking for clearance, or an object being left in a cycle lane is unacceptable imo.

You being one of these people with great imaginations where assumptions are made. Nowhere did the OP say they were on a cycling lane :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Unfortunately OP I'd say the taxi/passenger will claim you were cycling without due care and attention.

TheChizler

There was a near identical thread a few weeks ago and people were almost unanimously in favour of the cyclist.

The driver of the vehicle is responsible for actions of the occupants, they should have checked before the door was opened.

Kat1170

TheChizler wrote: »

There was a near identical thread a few weeks ago and people were almost unanimously in favour of the cyclist.

The driver of the vehicle is responsible for actions of the occupants, they should have checked before the door was opened.

I'm not so sure they are. If the passenger is under 17yo then yes, but if the passenger is an adult I don't think the driver is responsible.

Sleeper12

Kat1170 wrote:

I'm not so sure they are. If the passenger is under 17yo then yes, but if the passenger is an adult I don't think the driver is responsible.

Driver and his insurance are responsible in a private car let alone a taxi. For example the driver is responsible & gets fined if an adult isn't wearing a seat belt.
If op had to sue anyone it would be the taxi. After that the taxi could try sue his passenger.

Allinall

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Driver and his insurance are responsible in a private car let alone a taxi. For example the driver is responsible & gets fined if an adult isn't wearing a seat belt.
If op had to sue anyone it would be the taxi. After that the taxi could try sue his passenger.

That's not true.

Kat1170

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Driver and his insurance are responsible in a private car let alone a taxi. For example the driver is responsible & gets fined if an adult isn't wearing a seat belt.
If op had to sue anyone it would be the taxi. After that the taxi could try sue his passenger.

Not according to the law as far as I can see.

Driver is responsible for anyone under 17.

From RSA site.

Sleeper12

Kat1170 wrote:

Not according to the

Kat1170 wrote:

as far as I can see.

Kat1170 wrote:

Driver is responsible for anyone under 17.

Kat1170 wrote:

From

Point taken. This does seem to be the case for seatbelts. A bad example I gave.

NUTLEY BOY

Just a view as if this was a theoretical- not legal advice.

Consider negligence.

Is there a duty of care on the part of i) the driver and or ii) the passenger ?

I think that I would answer that in the affirmative for both.

Was the cyclist within the proximity of the neighbour concept - reasonable forseeability ? Yes.

This is a classical situation where there may be culpability between two potential defendants. The cyclist simply sues both on the established principle that the plaintiff does not assess liability as between joint tortfeasors. If the passenger is unidentified that might be problematical but more for the taxi driver than the cyclist.

BTW some motor insurance policies can provide indemnity to a passenger in these circumstances for their negligence as passengers. Sometimes the request for indemnity must come from the driver and should happen if there is not going to be conflict between driver and passenger as joint defendants. However, this is not something to which the cyclist has privity anyway so don't worry about it -just mentioned in passing to cadge a few extra marks from the examiner :rolleyes:

The driver may be liable for his own negligence in allowing a passenger to alight in the path of a cyclist.

Opening - or in some cases throwing - a car door open in the face of a cyclist is both dangerous and negligent.

Suggesting that the cyclist should have foreseen this event to the degree that he should be liable for someone else's negligence goes too far. I find the readiness to throw blame on a cyclist for every road event is simply not right or acceptable. I have no objective bias on this point as I both drive and cycle and see idiots on both sides of the driver/cyclist equation.

There might be an argument on contributory negligence. That would rest on showing that the cyclist showed - on the evidence - a lack or want of care for his own safety. On the bare facts of the query it is hard to see much, if anything, by way of discount here.

+1 most emphatically the prior views about not dealing directly with insurers.

Final views :

1. If Paddy Powers are offering odds I would fancy the cyclist's chances.
2. The cyclist really should instruct a solicitor now to deal with this.

endacl

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If the cyclist wad not able to stop in the visible distance in front of them, then they were travelling too fast for the conditions.

Hypothetical scenario: cycling at 8mph. Car door suddenly swings open 2" in front of a cyclist.

Seriously?

Sleeper12

I'll try this from a different angle. Taxi car is insured. Car door opens and hits cyclist. Could be a passenger, taxi driver or even the wind that opens the door. It's the car insurance covers this.
If a passenger gets out of my insured private car and door hits cyclist, it's my insurance pays out. That is why you have insurance. Now all of this is assuming that op wasn't negligent. But definitely anything to do with the taxi car itself is covered by his insurance

NUTLEY BOY

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'll try this from a different angle. Taxi car is insured. Car door opens and hits cyclist. Could be a passenger, taxi driver or even the wind that opens the door. It's the car insurance covers this.
If a passenger gets out of my insured private car and door hits cyclist, it's my insurance pays out. That is why you have insurance. Now all of this is assuming that op wasn't negligent. But definitely anything to do with the taxi car itself is covered by his insurance

Before you can determine whose insurance, if any, applies you need to clarify what the potential legal liabilities of the respective parties are first.

Having identified that issue you can then work out which insurer is involved

Sleeper12

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

Before you can determine whose insurance, if any, applies you need to clarify what the potential legal liabilities of the respective parties are first.

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

Having identified that issue you can then work out which insurer is involved

Assuming op has no fault at all then it doesn't matter imo. This is why you must have third party insurance by law. Even if after an investigation and they couldn't find out who opened the door or how it opened the third-party insurance still has to cover the innocent party, again imo.

TheChizler

endacl wrote: »

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If the cyclist wad not able to stop in the visible distance in front of them, then they were travelling too fast for the conditions.

Hypothetical scenario: cycling at 8mph. Car door suddenly swings open 2" in front of a cyclist.

Seriously?

I think that post was to do with the cycling into a stationary bin scenario.

goz83

Kat1170 wrote: »

You being one of these people with great imaginations where assumptions are made. Nowhere did the OP say they were on a cycling lane :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Unfortunately OP I'd say the taxi/passenger will claim you were cycling without due care and attention.

:pac::pac::pac:

You're getting confused with what you're replying to. I never mentioned the OP with a cycle lane context. The cycle lane was to do with the Off Topic scenario I posted, which I then elaborated on, as there was not enough information. I didn't want to start a new thread, as there were similarities with the OP and what I was asking.

endacl wrote: »

Hypothetical scenario: cycling at 8mph. Car door suddenly swings open 2" in front of a cyclist.

Seriously?

Answered below

TheChizler wrote: »

I think that post was to do with the cycling into a stationary bin scenario.

Yes, it was. Good spot

MarkAnthony

I use City bin, they're pretty good, but I don't think even they've started fitting wheelie bins with cloaking devices.

Atlantic Dawn

Which side of the car did the passenger open the door, was it footpath side or facing road side?

KwackerJack

Im driving my car and i come to a sharp bend, as i drive around i see a group of cyclists cyclying two abreast or single and depending on my road position, my speed and road conditions BANG!!!

Who is at fault....well I would be partially to balme as I should have expected the unexpected like any other road user!

So my point is yes the Taxi driver / passengers are to blame however you are to blame also as you approached the vehicle in a manner that allowed you no room to safely move out of harms way.

Sweetemotion

You crashed into a stationary vehicle. fault is yours

Sweetemotion

endacl wrote: »

Hypothetical scenario: cycling at 8mph. Car door suddenly swings open 2" in front of a cyclist.

Seriously?

Hypothetical scenario, car in front of you suddenly stops and you rear end it.

Who's insurance is going to pay out, the car who stopped or the car who rear ended him.

Seriously?

dr.fuzzenstein

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Hypothetical scenario, car in front of you suddenly stops and you rear end it.

Who's insurance is going to pay out, the car who stopped or the car who rear ended him.

Seriously?

Actual scenario, some idiot throws a car door open and doors a passing cyclist.
The equivalent is not rear ending, but more like passing a car which switches lanes without looking, causing an accident.
Cyclist absolutely not to blame. And idiotic to suggest otherwise.

Marcusm

Why is no one asking whether the cyclist was hit on the left or right side of the car. My recollection is that a cyclist is permitted to overtake on the left side in most circumstances but is specifically excluded from overtaking a car on the left if it is apparent that the vehicle has stopped for the purpose of a passenger alighting.

Sleeper12

Sweetemotion wrote:

You crashed into a stationary vehicle. fault is yours

But the door wasn't stationary.

4ensic15

[1965] DIGEST 1

DIGEST - Curley v. Mannion. 1965
NEGLIGENCE - Passenger in motor car opening rear door
[1965] IR 543 1 I.R.
NEGLIGENCE
Passenger in motor car opening rear door
Injury to cyclist - Duty of owner or driver of motor car to supervise actions of passenger in the use of the car.

The defendant, having parked his motor car on the correct side of the roadway was waiting in the car for his wife, who had gone shopping, to return. While waiting, is daughter left the car, made a purchase in a shop nearby, and returned to the car. She re-entered the car by the rear off-side door, and, seeing a lorry approaching, she did not close the door properly, but, merely pulled it to. After the lorry had passed she opened the door again, with a view to closing it properly, and the plaintiff who was passing on a bicycle was struck, thrown to the ground and injured. On the hearing in the High Court of the plaintiff's claim for damages, the trial Judge withdrew the case from the jury at the close of the evidence on the grounds 1, that there was no evidence to substantiate an allegation that the defendant had himself opened a door which struck the plaintiff, and 2, that the defendant was not responsible for the act of his passenger in opening the rear door of the car which was the cause of the accident. On an appeal by the plaintiff it was held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh C.J., Walsh and O'Keeffe JJ.) that the trial Judge was wrong in withdrawing the case from the jury on the second ground, and a retrial was directed. PerÓ Dálaigh C.J.: —"A person in charge of a motor car must take 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." Per Walsh J.: —"The defendant, as the owner and driver of the motor car in question, owed a duty to other persons using the highway not merely not to use or drive the car negligently, but to take precautions to ensure that the car, while under his control and supervision, was not used in a negligent fashion."

KwackerJack

4ensic15 wrote: »

[1965] DIGEST 1

DIGEST - Curley v. Mannion. 1965
NEGLIGENCE - Passenger in motor car opening rear door
[1965] IR 543 1 I.R.
NEGLIGENCE
Passenger in motor car opening rear door
Injury to cyclist - Duty of owner or driver of motor car to supervise actions of passenger in the use of the car.

The defendant, having parked his motor car on the correct side of the roadway was waiting in the car for his wife, who had gone shopping, to return. While waiting, is daughter left the car, made a purchase in a shop nearby, and returned to the car. She re-entered the car by the rear off-side door, and, seeing a lorry approaching, she did not close the door properly, but, merely pulled it to. After the lorry had passed she opened the door again, with a view to closing it properly, and the plaintiff who was passing on a bicycle was struck, thrown to the ground and injured. On the hearing in the High Court of the plaintiff's claim for damages, the trial Judge withdrew the case from the jury at the close of the evidence on the grounds 1, that there was no evidence to substantiate an allegation that the defendant had himself opened a door which struck the plaintiff, and 2, that the defendant was not responsible for the act of his passenger in opening the rear door of the car which was the cause of the accident. On an appeal by the plaintiff it was held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh C.J., Walsh and O'Keeffe JJ.) that the trial Judge was wrong in withdrawing the case from the jury on the second ground, and a retrial was directed. PerÓ Dálaigh C.J.: —"A person in charge of a motor car must take 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." Per Walsh J.: —"The defendant, as the owner and driver of the motor car in question, owed a duty to other persons using the highway not merely not to use or drive the car negligently, but to take precautions to ensure that the car, while under his control and supervision, was not used in a negligent fashion."

Great so the cyclist or other road users dont have to look where they are going as the person they hit should have seen them??

Best of luck with that theory

4ensic15

KwackerJack wrote: »

Great so the cyclist or other road users dont have to look where they are going as the person they hit should have seen them??

Best of luck with that theory

Theory? That is a statement of the law from the Supreme Court. What legal authority are you relying on?

Kat1170

That's all fantastic, BUT, the OP didn't hit the car. The door opened, he/she swerved hard (panicked ??) and due to the road surface and damp conditions ended up going tit over ar$e.

Sorry OP, but it sounds to me like cycling too fast for the conditions and overtaking a parked car without due care and attention. You should be giving the car enough room in case a door opens just like car drivers should give cyclists plenty of room when overtaking in case of cyclist having to swerve suddenly.

foggy_lad

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You crashed into a stationary vehicle. fault is yours

OP didn't hit the taxi, there was no contact with the taxi door at all.

edanto

The cyclist may well have been moving at a safe speed (15mph or so), may have been on either side of the car, in a bike lane or not... but if the taxi door opens suddenly into the cyclists path then the onus is on the taxi to have checked the movement of the door would not endanger another road users.

To my mind the cyclist would be entitled to win a case against both the passenger (mainly) and the taxi (less so).

4ensic15

There are numerous nuances in a situation like this.There are many facts which are unknown at this stage which might affect the o/p's prospects of a recovery. The o/p should go to a solicitor with a Personal Injuries Practice, one who operates on a no foal no fee basis. The solicitor will interview him and guide him.

seamus

Kat1170 wrote: »

That's all fantastic, BUT, the OP didn't hit the car. The door opened, he/she swerved hard (panicked ??) and due to the road surface and damp conditions ended up going tit over ar$e.

The same principle applies though. If someone pulls out of a sideroad in front of you and causes you to crash into something else, that person can be held fully liable for the incident.
Same here where the action of the passenger was the direct cause of the cyclist having to take evasion action, therefore the driver is vicariously liable.

In the wheelie bin scenario, I would take a look at a similar scenario where you crash into a vehicle which is parked on the road. Several factors would come into play including the nature of the parking - is it parked dangerously, has the driver taken reasonable steps to ensure that following vehicles will be aware, it's there, etc.

However, it's very much in the realms of possibility that the driver of the parked vehicle can be charged with dangerous parking and the driver who crashes into it, charged with dangerous driving.

So it would need some serious mitigating factors for the cyclist to find anyone else at fault. Though it can also depend on the severity of his injuries; a few bumps and scrapes and a judge may tell him to sling his hook. Broken bones and a brain injury and a judge would be more likely to award compensation from the party with the most insurance (i.e. the bin company).

NUTLEY BOY

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Assuming op has no fault at all then it doesn't matter imo. This is why you must have third party insurance by law. Even if after an investigation and they couldn't find out who opened the door or how it opened the third-party insurance still has to cover the innocent party, again imo.

Just a view.

Any action would be based primarily in tort. Therefore, the cyclist must prove fault on the part of the defendant(s). Although I understand your point I think that the innocent party concept does not really fly on these facts.

The motor insurance policy covering the taxi may only cover the taxi driver's liability and not that of the passenger. So, the taxi driver would probably need to be liable in his own right or to be vicariously liable for the passenger's action for the motor insurance to cover this.

The passenger - assume for discussion that they are identified - might have personal public liability insurance. However, you could almost bet that the passenger's insurers would refuse to cover this. The last time I looked at a public liability insurance problem I could swear that the policy excluded any liability arising out of or in connection with the use, possession, custody or control or control of a vehicle. The insurance guys would almost certainly argue that the taxi was being used by the passenger at the time and therefore excludes any indemnity to the passenger.

KwackerJack

4ensic15 wrote: »

Theory? That is a statement of the law from the Supreme Court. What legal authority are you relying on?

Well i cant rely on Irelands law as it goes on how the judge is feeling on the day.

If the judge was the passenger alighting the outcome would be different!

gizmo555

KwackerJack wrote: »

Im driving my car and i come to a sharp bend, as i drive around i see a group of cyclists cyclying two abreast or single and depending on my road position, my speed and road conditions BANG!!!

Who is at fault....well I would be partially to balme as I should have expected the unexpected like any other road user!

You'd be 100% to blame. If you remember nothing else from the Rules of the Road, you need always to recall that, regardless of the nominal speed limit, you must drive at a speed which will allow you to stop "within the distance that you can see to be clear".

If you come around a sharp bend and crash into cyclists just because you're not expecting them to be there, then clearly you'd have been driving too fast.

hullaballoo

KwackerJack wrote: »

Well i cant rely on Irelands law as it goes on how the judge is feeling on the day.

If the judge was the passenger alighting the outcome would be different!

Do you have any basis for this argument? Perhaps you could cite some cases that have had various outcomes depending on "how the judge is feeling on the day"?

Perhaps you could proffer an example of a judge in Ireland deciding on a matter involving his or her own interests?

Because otherwise, this is just trolling.

brendane

4ensic15 wrote:

The defendant, having parked his motor car on the correct side of the roadway was waiting in the car for his wife, who had gone shopping, to return. While waiting, is daughter left the car, made a purchase in a shop nearby, and returned to the car. She re-entered the car by the rear off-side door, and, seeing a lorry approaching, she did not close the door properly, but, merely pulled it to. After the lorry had passed she opened the door again, with a view to closing it properly, and the plaintiff who was passing on a bicycle was struck, thrown to the ground and injured. On the hearing in the High Court of the plaintiff's claim for damages, the trial Judge withdrew the case from the jury at the close of the evidence on the grounds 1, that there was no evidence to substantiate an allegation that the defendant had himself opened a door which struck the plaintiff, and 2, that the defendant was not responsible for the act of his passenger in opening the rear door of the car which was the cause of the accident. On an appeal by the plaintiff it was held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh C.J., Walsh and O'Keeffe JJ.) that the trial Judge was wrong in withdrawing the case from the jury on the second ground, and a retrial was directed. PerÓ Dálaigh C.J.: —"A person in charge of a motor car must take 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." Per Walsh J.: —"The defendant, as the owner and driver of the motor car in question, owed a duty to other persons using the highway not merely not to use or drive the car negligently, but to take precautions to ensure that the car, while under his control and supervision, was not used in a negligent fashion."

4ensic15 wrote:

The defendant, having parked his motor car on the correct side of the roadway was waiting in the car for his wife, who had gone shopping, to return. While waiting, is daughter left the car, made a purchase in a shop nearby, and returned to the car. She re-entered the car by the rear off-side door, and, seeing a lorry approaching, she did not close the door properly, but, merely pulled it to. After the lorry had passed she opened the door again, with a view to closing it properly, and the plaintiff who was passing on a bicycle was struck, thrown to the ground and injured. On the hearing in the High Court of the plaintiff's claim for damages, the trial Judge withdrew the case from the jury at the close of the evidence on the grounds 1, that there was no evidence to substantiate an allegation that the defendant had himself opened a door which struck the plaintiff, and 2, that the defendant was not responsible for the act of his passenger in opening the rear door of the car which was the cause of the accident. On an appeal by the plaintiff it was held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh C.J., Walsh and O'Keeffe JJ.) that the trial Judge was wrong in withdrawing the case from the jury on the second ground, and a retrial was directed. PerÓ Dálaigh C.J.: —"A person in charge of a motor car must take 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." Per Walsh J.: —"The defendant, as the owner and driver of the motor car in question, owed a duty to other persons using the highway not merely not to use or drive the car negligently, but to take precautions to ensure that the car, while under his control and supervision, was not used in a negligent fashion."

4ensic15 wrote:

DIGEST - Curley v. Mannion. 1965 NEGLIGENCE - Passenger in motor car opening rear door [1965] IR 543 1 I.R. NEGLIGENCE Passenger in motor car opening rear door Injury to cyclist - Duty of owner or driver of motor car to supervise actions of passenger in the use of the car.

Hang on. All you have highlighted here is a case where the Supreme Court said that the high Court judge was wrong to dismiss the original case and it should be retried. What happened at the high court retrial. Maybe the driver was found not to be negligent at all

4ensic15

brendane wrote: »

Hang on. All you have highlighted here is a case where the Supreme Court said that the high Court judge was wrong to dismiss the original case and it should be retried. What happened at the high court retrial. Maybe the driver was found not to be negligent at all

The jury only decide on facts. The law is directed by the judge. Who knows or cares what facts were ultimately found?

KwackerJack

gizmo555 wrote: »

You'd be 100% to blame. If you remember nothing else from the Rules of the Road, you need always to recall that, regardless of the nominal speed limit, you must drive at a speed which will allow you to stop "within the distance that you can see to be clear".

If you come around a sharp bend and crash into cyclists just because you're not expecting them to be there, then clearly you'd have been driving too fast.

Ok great. Im going to drive around every single bend at bicycle speed just incase there is a cyclist around the bend. Id love to see myself telling that to the Guard stuck behind me!!

Its very simple, the cyclist was travelling to fast and to close to the car to avoid the accident and according to you i would be correct!!

gizmo555

KwackerJack wrote: »

Ok great. Im going to drive around every single bend at bicycle speed just incase there is a cyclist around the bend.

You must drive around every single bend (and everywhere else) at a speed which will allow you to stop in time within the distance you can see to be clear ahead.

If you don't, you're not just breaking the law, sooner or later you're going to hit something "unexpected". Never mind "bicycle speed" - what if you come around a bend to find a fallen tree, or a broken down truck? Are you going to tell the Guard stuck behind you that it was the tree's fault as he helps to lift you into the ambulance?

That's if you're lucky, unlike my family member who came round a bend to find an "unexpected" obstacle, but didn't live to tell the tale.