To refuse to pay

[MamanOfThree]

Went out with three colleagues of mine on Friday for an office do. I was driving.
As we were getting in the car colleague B managed to shut the door onto the hand of colleague A.
I sent a text to colleague A this am to check that her fingers were OK (she said it was fine on friday evening). Her answer was that yes her fingers are OK, no problem at all. However, two of her rings got badly damaged as well as the strap of her watch. She is asking ME to pay for the repair and to claim via the insurance of the car.

Now my issue is that
1- it's not me who closed the door on her and but colleague B. I was nowhere near them at the time (ie on the other side of the car) so really they should sort it between them.
2- This is not an issue with the car being dangerous etc... It was an accident due to bad timing/not being careful (s drunk?)
3- but if I do put a claim, then I am the one who will see the insurrance premium going up.

So AIBU to say that no I'm not going to pay/claim through my insurance?

I haven't said she should (in fact, I've said she shouldn't offer, several times now). I have also said the woman should claim off her own personal possessions policy...

Re your link, I don't think much of either section, as it doesn't really apply to what I am talking about in previous post as the driver hasn't injured anyone - the Passenger has. Could be contributory negligence there, yes, if the colleague has drunkenly left her hand in the door, but we're splitting hairs now and that's not really the issue.

What are your thoughts on my previous post about the policy wording and what it covers?

So I talked to colleague A. Colleague C (the third person who was with us) was there too.
I told colleague A that really she needed to look at her home content insurrance for her rings and that I wasn't ready to put a claim on my car insurrance for that.
Colleague C was and clearly couldn't believe her cheek!
I think that was enough to stop colleage A in her track and she went away saying she would have a look....

Roastit thank you for your kind offer. I think that Colleague C reaction was a bit of cold wake up shower for colleague A and hopefully she won't pursue it.

Re how it happened. I have one of those car with slidding doors at the back. Colleage A was going in at the back, putting her hand on the metal frame of the car (it's also the frame that the front door closes on iyswim). Colleage B was going in at the front and just closed the foor door on her hand. From what colleage A said, both rings were bent and on one of them. the stones were becoming lose.
Having had my fingers caught in door like this before, I can see how this would be possible.
I have no idea what happened to the watch

OP - were you actually in the car at the time? Was the engine running? If your were to be liable for this, then presumably we'd all be liable if, say, some fuckwit walked into our reasonably parked car.

Roastit
I haven't said she should (in fact, I've said she shouldn't offer, several times now). I have also said the woman should claim off her own personal possessions policy...

But you've also said the OP is liable.

What are your thoughts on my previous post about the policy wording and what it covers?

I did already comment. I think it's unlikely to cover the OP's specific passenger to passenger situation, and that it makes a difference that the damage is to the passenger's jewellery rather than personal injury.

Maman
Having had my fingers caught in door like this before, I can see how this would be possible.

In your car or another one with a similar door system? I suppose if this had happened before with your car, there might be an element of 'foreseeability' and you could warn passengers about the doors. But adults should also be responsible for exercising reasonable care themselves.

No my accident had nothing to do with that car. It was a very long time ago! lol
My point was about the fact that I can see how you can get your fingers badly trapped and rings damaged (Mine was bad enough that I actually had a small fracture. And I did it on my own by closing the door on my own fingers...)

And no I hadn't started the engine at all, car was parked, colleague C wasn't in the car yet and I had just gone in.

Brown v Roberts [1965] established that a driver isn't liable for the negligence of a passenger unless their own negligence has contributed to the passenger's actions.

First Defendant is the passenger, Second Defendant is the driver:

"Justice Megan said that the claim against the First Defendant was relatively straightforward. The court was satisfied that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was sufficient to prove that the First Defendant opened the door without taking due and proper care for pedestrians on the pavement. As a result of that negligence the plaintiff was struck by the door, knocked down and sustained her injuries. There was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

The claim against the Second Defendant was more complex. The First ground, failing to prevent the First Defendant from acting carelessly in opening the door failed due to lack of evidence. There was no evidence showing that the Second Defendant knew, or should have known that his passenger was going to act this way. Even if he had known, he had no opportunity to stop his passenger flinging open the door as it happened instantaneously."

The practical position is that many insurance policies do cover the negligent actions of passengers.

I'm impressed, GrandadGrumps. I googled extensively but couldn't find any cases with similar circumstances.

I think it would be particularly bonkers to make drivers automatically responsible for the actions of their passengers. As I mentioned earlier the concept of social benefit is a factor in relation to duty of care and issues of potential negligence. There is a huge benefit in giving lifts to other people, not just from an environmental and community point of view but also in terms of reducing the number of drivers on the roads who may have exceeded their alchohol limit. It would be counterproductive to hold drivers responsible for one of their passenger's actions against another and could well have a detrimental effect on people's willingness to provide lifts to others.

Whatever the insurance says or the legal stance, it just would not enter my mind to even suggest that your insurance was to pay for it? It sounds like she hasn't got a clue how insurance work and that she thinks that it won't cost you or anyone else anything. I would feel mortified if I was passenger B who closed the door on her but you...seriously, you out of kindness offered to drive and this is the thanks you get? speechless

Grandadgrumps have but especially . You have solved the debate!!

A driver is not responsible in law if a passenger causes damage opening their door, provided they were not negligent. This means that they didn't realise that the passenger was about to open the door in such a way at that instant.

One situation in which a driver may be negligent is if a child under their supervision opens the door. The negligence would be either in not using the child lock, or not ensuring that the child only opened the door when told by the driver that it's safe to do so.

OP your car was not a cause of her accident and you were not a cause of her accident therefore your insurance company will not cover this and you have no responsibility in this.

I would tell her that she needs to pursue this with the friend who shut the door on her, if they have homeowners insurance they might be covered for this but frankly as she was drunk she could be viewed as partially negligent and contributing to her own accident. If I was the friend who shut the door on her I would probably argue this as it sounds like a simple drunken accident (painful though!) She should consider herself lucky her hand wasn't hurt worse and move on with her life.