Taxi Driver Online

We had a booking for a wedding which didn't go too well when the car eventually arrived at the honeymoon destination the groom jumped out of the car (pi**ed) and tripped over a small fence and broke his elbow.

Now he wants us to compensate him for tripping over

What do you think chaps and chapesses?

Tell them to do one and sue us or give them some money and hope they go away?

_________________
Life? Don't talk to me about life!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjm2eslm6hI

Personally I'd wait to see what his solicitors come back with and on what grounds they feel you were negligent. I certainly wouldn't pay anything to them at this stage. They may well say you were negligent because you didn't ensure they got out of the vehicle safely or you stopped in a stupid place so to speak. That is my humble opinion such as it is

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Are we not (public liability) insured from kerb to car and vice versa? So assuming the car parked away from the fence, surely he is the author of his own downfall?

_________________
My heart is heavy, but my consience clear,
I voted Yes, without any fear.

I think by the time you contact your insurers and his solicitors get in touch with them......they'll pay out, provided their client doesnt get greedy.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I would not give them a penny! since when was the fence your problem? Just how far down the road from your vehicle do they have to go before you are safe!?

You did your bit, you delivered them from A to B safely (didn't you), it was after they/he got out of the car that the accident happened............unless you were negligent in stopping at a point whereby it was unsafe i.e pitch black,one step and over the fence.

If you did all the right things then I cannot see how he can claim against you.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

Found this post by the late JD.



Green v Kis Coaches and Taxis Ltd

County Court (Plymouth)

07 March 2008

Unreported

Subject: Personal injury

Related To: Buses; Evidentiary facts; Fixed costs; Occupiers' liability; Road traffic accidents; Statutory definition

Summary: Road traffic accidents; Statutory definition; Personal injury claims for falls from parked coaches; Avoiding restricted costs regime by alternative basis of claims

Background: The court was required to determine costs following the acceptance by the claimant passenger (G) of a Part 36 offer made by the defendant coach company (K) in a claim for personal injury. G had sustained injury alighting from one of K's coaches that was parked in a public car park. The basis of the claim was the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 s.2 . G accepted K's Part 36 offer, saying that the payment of her reasonable costs were to be on the standard basis to be the subject of costs-only proceedings pursuant to CPR r.44.12A , the cost to be determined by detailed assessment in the absence of agreement. K replied that in the instant case fixed costs applied, but G stated that, as it was not a road traffic accident, fixed costs did not apply. A bill was prepared for detailed assessment, which K did not contest. K was subsequently ordered to pay G's reasonable costs of the claim on a standard basis. In the points of dispute, K stated that, notwithstanding the fact that the claim had been pursued as a breach of s.2, the accident actually came within the definition of a road traffic accident in CPR r.45.7 , and therefore the costs recoverable were limited to fixed recoverable costs, since the other provisions of CPR r.45.7(2) were met on the facts of the case.

Thus, the issue in the case was whether the accident arose out of the use of a motor vehicle.

Judgment for defendant. G had travelled in the coach and her injury had been caused as she was alighting from it. As a result, her injury arose out of the use of the coach, Dunthorpe v Bentley Unreported February 26, 1996 CA considered. Therefore, the accident fell within the definition of a road traffic accident in CPR r.45.7(4)(a) and it was not possible to evade the restricted costs regime imposed by r.45.7 by basing the claim on other grounds.

Judge: District Judge Tromans

Counsel: For the claimant: Non-counsel representative. For the defendant: Lucy Wyles

Solicitor: For the claimant: Nash & Co (Plymouth). For the defendant: McCullagh & Co

Legislation Cited

Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998 3132) r.44.12A

Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998 3132) r.45.7

Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998 3132) r.45.7(2)

Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998 3132) r.45.7(4)(a)

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (c.31) s.2

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Unless they can show a breach of your duty of care, they would have a hard job convincing a court IMHO. They must be able to show that the accident was reasonably foreseeable.

However, you are duty bound to notify your insurers of the possibility of a claim.

Put it in the hands of your insurance company.

_________________
IDFIMH

Thanks all

_________________
Life? Don't talk to me about life!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjm2eslm6hI

I'm no expert on this but I reckon you'll be OK. He was out of the car so IMO you've done your bit. People like that make me sick, it's this claim culture we find ourselves in at the moment.