Cab passenger pay part of damages in accident

[Jellandross]

I always make it a point to alight from the left side and keep a look out even if I boarded a taxi on the right side. Can I say drivers are more careful?

 

I think those passengers who are not drivers themselves will be more clueless about the implications of their actions, eg: safer exit from the left vs right, look outside the window for incoming cars before opening door, etc.

 

I just had a close encounter with a taxi at my condo this week whereby the passenger opened the door just as I was about to pass by the taxi. Luckily I was extremely slow, caught a glimpse of the door gap widening and managed to brake in time. It could have been a very bad day for everyone if I was a second faster.

[Kb27]

Everytime a taxi stops at a car park or road side, and you'll be passing on the right, just slow down and watch out.

 

Some passengers like to push open the door on the right without watching the traffic.

[13177]

Everytime a taxi stops at a car park or road side, and you'll be passing on the right, just slow down and watch out.

 

Some passengers like to push open the door on the right without watching the traffic.

I think many just dont watch out on their surrounding when open door. The door can also hit people who walk past the taxi, when the passengers just swing open the door!?

Edited November 14, 2016 by 13177

[Galantspeedz]

Nope. Taxi insurance is for injury only. So the passenger has to pay in this case. The car's insurer will payout to the owner first then claim back from the passenger lo.

 

really? and if the amount is huge and cannot pay... passenger go bankrupt?

[A_korusawa]

this is so wrong!!!!

 

I drive and I do hate passenger who just open doors (especially on the right) w/o checking first.

But to have a non-issured coverage to pay for the insures, especially for this case where initial danage was only S$5900...... this is utter BS!

and the bloody District Judge is damn bloody unjust and useless, allowing both insurers law suit to happen!

 

Period! . . . . if passenger insisted alighting at non-designated or unadvised spot, then its all at passenger's fault even if a traffic summon is given

BUT the taxi driver has all the rights to ensure the safety of passengers, his taxi and others to facilitate the passenger's alight!

 

for this instance, the taxi did not alight the passenger accordingly, and since both vehicles are commercially driven, then they are liable for their loss since insured accordingly. there's no such past, previous law that penalize the public or in this case the passenger.....

 

the passenger representative lawyer could have "nail" this bloody irrationale judeg for his nonsenical judgement, but there was no trials at all !!!!

Imagine.... a car got into an accident by warding off a reskless cyclist, or dashing jaywalker

can the accident involvees sue the cyclist or jaywalker for compensations without trial like the above case ???

 

Nowadays, I really wonder where have the righteous professionally Judges gone to?

this is such a stupid judgemental passed by this District Judge !!!

 

those of you who thumbs up on this - Please use your head to think what is the implication on this!!!!

if this case continues and allows taxi drivers to claim passenger - what if the passenger is young kid?

[Nzy]

Everytime a taxi stops at a car park or road side, and you'll be passing on the right, just slow down and watch out.

 

Some passengers like to push open the door on the right without watching the traffic.

 

Yes. That is the right way. Or not pass the taxi far enough that even if the door opens you won't hit it. I guess that is why the car driver also got a portion of the blame.

[Jungus]

Not so easy.

 

What happened if the passenger is foreigner on business trip or tourist?

Company or hotel liable?

 

My case was the taxi driver insurance bear the both repair cost and lost of income for taxi driver.

Sorry, but questions like this just goes to show how little we truly understand the law involved here.

 

Simply put, a person is only liable for damage if he by his action or inaction causes the damage. 

 

Any passenger, on his own accord, opens the door and causes damage, then he is liable. Whether said passenger is local or foreign, businessman or tourist has nothing to do with it. The driver of the vehicle is not liable and so his insurance is not applicable at all in this situation. If you are unable to claim from the guilty party it's just tough luck. 

 

However, on the other hand, if the driver stops the vehicle and actively participates in or condones the passenger opening the door, then that is different. Then the driver becomes liable for his action or inaction in the matter. And if he is liable, his insurers come into the picture.

[SuPerBoRed]

this is so wrong!!!!

 

I drive and I do hate passenger who just open doors (especially on the right) w/o checking first.

But to have a non-issured coverage to pay for the insures, especially for this case where initial danage was only S$5900...... this is utter BS!

and the bloody District Judge is damn bloody unjust and useless, allowing both insurers law suit to happen!

 

Period! . . . . if passenger insisted alighting at non-designated or unadvised spot, then its all at passenger's fault even if a traffic summon is given

BUT the taxi driver has all the rights to ensure the safety of passengers, his taxi and others to facilitate the passenger's alight!

 

for this instance, the taxi did not alight the passenger accordingly, and since both vehicles are commercially driven, then they are liable for their loss since insured accordingly. there's no such past, previous law that penalize the public or in this case the passenger.....

 

the passenger representative lawyer could have "nail" this bloody irrationale judeg for his nonsenical judgement, but there was no trials at all !!!!

Imagine.... a car got into an accident by warding off a reskless cyclist, or dashing jaywalker

can the accident involvees sue the cyclist or jaywalker for compensations without trial like the above case ???

 

Nowadays, I really wonder where have the righteous professionally Judges gone to?

this is such a stupid judgemental passed by this District Judge !!!

 

those of you who thumbs up on this - Please use your head to think what is the implication on this!!!!

if this case continues and allows taxi drivers to claim passenger - what if the passenger is young kid?

 

calm down...  i was thinking along your lines...  

 

but after reading the report.. personally.. cannot determine the circumstances of the accident (ie.. alighting point, how much time lapsed till she opened the car door.. which part of the car did the taxi hit? etc etc ) .. but i suppose if the passenger willing to take a portion of the blame.. deep down...  she is not juz admitting she is at partly at fault.. she also wants to avoid adding up costs...  

[Jungus]

this is so wrong!!!!

 

I drive and I do hate passenger who just open doors (especially on the right) w/o checking first.

But to have a non-issured coverage to pay for the insures, especially for this case where initial danage was only S$5900...... this is utter BS!

and the bloody District Judge is damn bloody unjust and useless, allowing both insurers law suit to happen!

 

Period! . . . . if passenger insisted alighting at non-designated or unadvised spot, then its all at passenger's fault even if a traffic summon is given

BUT the taxi driver has all the rights to ensure the safety of passengers, his taxi and others to facilitate the passenger's alight!

 

for this instance, the taxi did not alight the passenger accordingly, and since both vehicles are commercially driven, then they are liable for their loss since insured accordingly. there's no such past, previous law that penalize the public or in this case the passenger.....

 

the passenger representative lawyer could have "nail" this bloody irrationale judeg for his nonsenical judgement, but there was no trials at all !!!!

Imagine.... a car got into an accident by warding off a reskless cyclist, or dashing jaywalker

can the accident involvees sue the cyclist or jaywalker for compensations without trial like the above case ???

 

Nowadays, I really wonder where have the righteous professionally Judges gone to?

this is such a stupid judgemental passed by this District Judge !!!

 

those of you who thumbs up on this - Please use your head to think what is the implication on this!!!!

if this case continues and allows taxi drivers to claim passenger - what if the passenger is young kid?

Your rant is wrong on so many fronts but I dare not argue with you.... 

 

Just continue to believe in what you want. At least until a passenger in your vehicle opens the door without your knowledge...

[Megaweb]

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/cab-passenger-pays-part-of-the-bill-for-damage-in-crash

 

 

This is a very interesting topic to discuss.

 

If a cab passenger cause an accident, he will be liable to pay for damages

 

Anyway, this passenger, Amanda Tng, is partly at fault, to open the door at right side. 

 

My ex-colleague went to Taiwan for business trip many years ago, this similar case happened there. He opened the door and caused accident. He was asked to pay 100% damage, else could not leave the scene.

[Nzy]

My ex-colleague went to Taiwan for business trip many years ago, this similar case happened there. He opened the door and caused accident. He was asked to pay 100% damage, else could not leave the scene.

 

Yeah. I thought this is the way all the while. Guess this case, the damage must have been quite bad and the lady didn't want to pay. Heard from a few of my taxi driver friends that usually, they settle privately and the passenger pays all.

[Jungus]

A private settlement makes a whole lot of sense. Because if the police get involved both driver and passenger can be charged for an offence under the Road Traffic Act. You see, civil liability is one thing. Criminal liability is another thing altogether...

[Atonchia]

Sorry, but questions like this just goes to show how little we truly understand the law involved here.

 

Simply put, a person is only liable for damage if he by his action or inaction causes the damage.

 

Any passenger, on his own accord, opens the door and causes damage, then he is liable. Whether said passenger is local or foreign, businessman or tourist has nothing to do with it. The driver of the vehicle is not liable and so his insurance is not applicable at all in this situation. If you are unable to claim from the guilty party it's just tough luck.

 

However, on the other hand, if the driver stops the vehicle and actively participates in or condones the passenger opening the door, then that is different. Then the driver becomes liable for his action or inaction in the matter. And if he is liable, his insurers come into the picture.

So how is the insurer going to claim from the tourist?

 

Unless a police report is made, it is going to be difficult to claim.

Even if police report is made it's not going to be easy to claim too, for example, between accident involved only drivers but one is foreign driver & vehicle.

[A_korusawa]

calm down...  i was thinking along your lines...  

 

but after reading the report.. personally.. cannot determine the circumstances of the accident (ie.. alighting point, how much time lapsed till she opened the car door.. which part of the car did the taxi hit? etc etc ) .. but i suppose if the passenger willing to take a portion of the blame.. deep down...  she is not juz admitting she is at partly at fault.. she also wants to avoid adding up costs...  

relac . . . . my comments was copied from http://www.mycarforum.com/topic/2652200-ways-to-prevent-erroneous-claims-from-accident/ . . . .

this implication here is dj just summoned all 3 parties w/o trial.

he just wanna end this legislation hurriedly coz the legal fees was played up by both insurers to be $3k (more than 1/2 of total damages)!

and both are commercial vehicles with their respective insurers . . . .

this had set the wrong precedences for times to come, as spoken by the passenger's lawyer (but he cannot do anything coz there was no trial at all).....

those who practised law will see this.....  again, its a duress against commoners with a flawed legislative decision made here.

Edited November 14, 2016 by A_korusawa

[Jungus]

So how is the insurer going to claim from the tourist?

 

.

Huh?

 

Insurer claim what?