Car door opening - who's at fault?

Samuel T. Cogley

Just curious, not something that's happened. Given legally parked on say a housing estate with parking on both sides of the road, and just enough space to get cars through (one going in each direction) who is at fault if a door is opened and run into, again lets say there was very little to no warning the door would be opened.

Thanks.

emeldc

I can't see how it would be anyone else's fault only the person who opened the door.

Samuel T. Cogley

My thoughts too, but aren't you meant to leave a gap in case a car door opens?

Boardnashea

I would have thought, if everything else was stationary, then the driver of the moving vehicle would be liable.

emeldc

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

My thoughts too, but aren't you meant to leave a gap in case a car door opens?

If you do that you might hit the car coming towards you. I doubt you could use the excuse that you were leaving a gap in case someone in a parked car opened a door.

Borderfox

Whomever opened the door would be liable imo

emeldc

Boardnashea wrote: »

I would have thought, if everything else was stationary, then the driver of the moving vehicle would be liable.

Seriously? Someone in a stationery car opens a car door into moving traffic and it's the other drivers fault? Like seriously???

dense

Whoever opens the door is at fault, reasoning that if there were cars parked on both sides, a driver could not legitimately be expected to progress safely whilst watching out for opening doors on their left and right simultaneously.

But then hypothetically, if it was an unexpected child being collided with instead of a opened door, we would quite rightly be treating this differently, considering the speed of the driver, how alert they were, whether they were under the influence of anything, possibly the condition of the vehicle's braking system etc.

So the opened car door scenario may not be as simple as an open and closed case.

biko

Motors -> Legal discussion.

hullaballoo

As above.

It depends on all of the surrounding circumstances and what is reasonable in those circumstances.

I think most of the time, the unobservant door-opener would be liable but it's conceivable that the person driving into the door could be liable depending on the circumstances.

Having said that, I anticipate many more answers where people are somehow able to opine on liability to 100% certainty with the vague and incomplete facts set out in the OP.

seamus

"Reasonable expectation". If the moving vehicle had just seen the car pull in and park, there may be a "reasonable expectation" that the vehicle's door is going to open before you get the opportunity to pass. Likewise the person opening the door should have a reasonable expectation that traffic may be coming down the road.

As said, there are lots of permutations here but for the most part the only situation in which the door opener is not partially at fault, is where the door is already open well before the moving vehicle comes within spitting distance.

Caranica

I've been that driver, kinda. I had a car door open as I drove past. Wrecked my wing over the passenger wheel arch.

I had to push it with my insurance company who initially wanted to cover my damage and the teenage souped up BMW driver's insurance to cover him.

I pointed out that if I'd driven into an open door the front of my car would have been damaged but the location of the damage meant I had started to pass when the door was opened without the driver looking in his mirror. Long story short, I won and his insurance company covered the repair and hire car.

Took 9 months to get sorted but was worth fighting

Claw Hammer

In Curley v. Mannion [1965] I.R. 543 , the defendant who was the owner and driver of a motor vehicle which was parked on its correct side of the road was held liable to a cyclist pedestrian who suddenly without warning was hit by the passenger door being opened by a passenger child of the defendant who did not look to see the coast was clear.

27. In that judgment, Ó Dálaigh C.J. stated (at p. 546):-

"…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

IEHC 8
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."

28. In the same case, Walsh J. stated (at p. 549):-

"In my view 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 reasonable precautions to ensure that the car, while under his control and supervision, was not used in a negligent fashion. It would indeed be a startling proposition that a person in charge of a motor vehicle on a public highway should not owe any duty to third parties save in respect of his own negligent act in the use of the vehicle, or in respect of omissions relating to his own use of the vehicle, and that he should not be liable in negligence for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the negligent use of a motor car by a passenger therein while it is under his control and supervision when such negligent use is actually known to or ought to be foreseen by him."

29. It is clear from the above that the passenger in Curley was a child of the defendant and clearly ought to have been amenable to more direct control than an adult but that the duty is not to be confined to children. Neither is the duty of care as outline in Curley (above) limited to the children of the driver/owner.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

fineso.mom

This happened to me on a narrow street. A passenger of a parked car opened the rear door just as i was passing. Damaged the front and rear passenger doors of my car...it wasnt even my car,it was on loan from my mechanic!. The driver didnt even question responsibilty. We exchanged insurance details but the driver just paid the mechanic directly for two new doors and a respray.It was all very amicable luckily. I did feel sorry for the teenager that opened the door without looking though.

Sleeper12

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

My thoughts too, but aren't you meant to leave a gap in case a car door opens?

No

unattendedbag

Sleeper12 wrote: »

No

Well the RSA rules of the road recommend leaving at least 1 metre from the nearside of car and parked cars. Granted this may not be possible on a narrow street. If drivers left one metre and people in parked cars checked behind them before opening doors then these incidents would never happen.

harr

Seen it happen a few months back , a teenager opened back door of a car just as another car was passing, for a low speed bang a lot of damage was done to both cars.
No question of responsibility stationary car driver took responsibility and insurance paid out..

Claw Hammer

unattendedbag wrote: »

Well the RSA rules of the road recommend leaving at least 1 metre from the nearside of car and parked cars. Granted this may not be possible on a narrow street. If drivers left one metre and people in parked cars checked behind them before opening doors then these incidents would never happen.

Accidents don't happen, they are caused.

dense

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Accidents don't happen, they are caused.

They want us to say collision instead of accident.

Which I'm not terribly comfortable with due it's conjuring up images of collisions being non accidental or deliberate.


Preventable accident would be far better.
Cos they're all preventable now apparently.

hullaballoo

The poster quoted actually used the word "incident", which is how I would always describe these things.

Accident is too ambiguous in that it can both infer and dispel blame or liability at the same time.

dense

hullaballoo wrote: »

The poster quoted actually used the word "incident", which is how I would always describe these things.

Accident is too ambiguous in that it can both infer and dispel blame or liability at the same time.

Yes, an "incident", a favourite of the AA Traffic Reports!


Covers every eventuality from a train to a seagull nowadays.

Horribly ambiguous itself but gets the job done I suppose.