Don’t assume the third-party driver is always responsible for the actions of his passenger(s). Leaving the passenger out of your claim and to go only after the driver has its risks.
- We have read about accidents being caused by the passengers opening the door of a stationary taxi (read here). The sudden opening of the door will cause property damage to another vehicle overtaking the stationary taxi from its (the taxi’s) near side. See the illustration below extracted from page 86 of the Motor Accident Guide1.
- Fron the claimant’s perspective, will you only go after the driver of the taxi for failing to ensure that his passenger did not open the door? Prospective claimants may choose to do this because the taxi driver is covered by insurance. His insurer will satisfy the claim if the taxi driver is found liable for causing the accident. In contrast, there is no insurer to cover a passenger’s negligence.
- Another reason is that the passenger’s particulars may not be easily available, from say a Singapore Accident Statement or a police report2. It could well be the case that a passenger may just walk away3! Leaving the poor driver to deal with the mess he had left behind. Without the passenger’s particulars, it would be impossible to name him as a co-defendant in a suit, let alone to serve the court papers on him personally.
- The risk of going only after the driver (and not to include the passenger as a co-defendant) is that the duty of care on a driver is only to exercise reasonable control over the actions of his passenger(s) to avoid causing damage or injury to other road users4. The driver is not required to make sure that his passenger did not commit a negligent act5. If you choose to name the driver as the sole defendant, you run the risk of having your claim dismissed if the court finds that the driver is not liable for the actions of his passenger. Let’s take a look at 2 cases studies where the drivers were absolved of liability over the actions of their passengers:
| SN | Accident location | How the accident happened | Court’s finding/observations |
| 1. 6 | – At a red traffic light junction.
– Single lane (per direction). |
– The “protagonist vehicle”: the stationary taxi was about 3 – 5 feet away from the left kerb.
– The “victim vehicle”: a motorcycle which was pulling up beside the left of the taxi. – The door that opened: left rear door of the taxi. |
– The taxi driver did not know his passenger was going to open the door. As the passenger’s act of opening the door was sudden and without any warning, the driver would not be in a position at all to stop or prevent his passenger from alighting from his taxi and opening the door, and causing the accident as a result7.
– The main “culprit” for the accident was the passenger8. |
| 2. 9 | – Near a fiire hydrant, about 10- feet from a traffic junction.
– A one-way street. |
– The “protagonist vehicle”: it was unclear how far the taxi was from the left kerb. But the judgment noted that “The off-side of the taxi was in line with the middle of the back of a car which was parked in front of it.”
– The “victim vehicle”: a vehicle which was overtaking from the left of the taxi. – The door that opened: left front door of the taxi. |
– The passenger was negligent in opening the door without first taking reasonable care to see that her act would not endanger any other vehicle or road user; and her negligence was the sole cause of the accident. |
- So, don’t assume that drivers are always responsible for the actions of their erring passengers. If your vehicle is involved in an accident involving an opening passenger door, do note down the passenger’s particulars. Just in case he has to be included as a co-defendant (the other co-defendant being the driver) to your claim. It will be a pity if the main culprit is allowed to walk away scot-free, leaving the poor driver to deal with the mess he has left behind.
1 Motor Accident Guide: A guide on the assessment of liability in motor accident cases (Mighty Minds Publishing, 1st Ed, 2014.
2 if the passenger decides not to make one, especially in property damage claims where the parties involved in the accident do not have to make a police report if no injuries are sustained.
3 On the facts in Tan Hung Chiang v Ang Kong Hwee [1965] MLJ 59 (“Tan Hung Chiang”).
4 [9] of Lee Mei Alice v Ivano Perazzeli and Another [2007] SGDC 24 (“Lee Mei Alice”).
5 Ibid.
6Lee Mei Alice, supra note 4.
7Lee Mei Alice, supra note 4 at [10].
8Lee Mei Alice, supra note 4 at [20].
9Tan Hung Chiang, supra note 3.
