Passenger accident claim: cars, vans, buses, coaches

The legal architecture: passenger as injured third party

As a passenger you are an injured third party for the purposes of compulsory motor insurance. Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires every UK driver to carry insurance covering their liability to third parties. The implementing regime under sections 145-153 of the 1988 Act specifies the minimum cover, the exclusions and the rights of injured third parties. Where the at-fault driver is insolvent or has been dissolved, the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 gives you a direct statutory right to bring proceedings against the insurer.

The mechanics of suing the driver of your own vehicle deserve particular comment. If your friend was driving and they caused the collision, you sue them as defendant - but the practical effect is that their insurer pays out under the policy. Insurers are well used to claims by passengers against the driver they were travelling with; the actuarial expectation that some proportion of motor claims will be brought by passenger claimants is built into premiums. Some claimants worry about the social cost of bringing such a claim. Legally, it is straightforward; socially, it is between you and the driver, who will usually understand that the insurer is paying.

In multi-vehicle collisions where liability is split between two or more drivers, the passenger has a joint and several liability claim against each at-fault driver. Section 1 of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 allows the joint defendants to recover contribution from each other in the proportions reflecting their share of fault. The passenger does not need to apportion liability themselves - they simply identify both at-fault drivers as defendants and let the insurers fight out the contribution between themselves.

The OIC portal and passenger claims

Passengers in cars, vans, buses, coaches and similar enclosed motor vehicles fall inside the Official Injury Claim portal scope at officialinjuryclaim.org.uk. The portal handles RTA personal injury claims with PSLA up to £5,000, with the whiplash tariff under the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/642) as amended by SI 2025/615 (for accidents from 31 May 2025) applying to whiplash injuries lasting up to 24 months. Non-whiplash injuries on the same file are valued conventionally and the portal handles the combined claim.

The portal procedure: register a Claim Notification Form; the at-fault insurer (the ‘compensator’) is notified and has defined working-day windows to respond; a MedCo medical examination is arranged (with the expert allocated randomly through MedCo Registration Solutions to prevent prior-relationship cartels); the medical report sets the duration band and identifies any non-tariff injuries; the compensator makes a settlement offer based on the report; negotiation occurs; settlement is paid or the file exits the portal to the pre-action protocol track.

Above the £5,000 PSLA threshold the claim is too high-value for the OIC portal and runs on the pre-action protocol for personal injury claims. Inter-partes legal costs are recoverable from the at-fault insurer on the fast track and multi-track. A panel solicitor handles the file from letter of claim to settlement, with the same evidence base (police report, dashcam footage, witness statements, medical records, MedCo or instructed expert report).

Motorbike pillions and the vulnerable-road-user exclusion

The OIC portal scope excludes ‘vulnerable road users’ - pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, pillion and sidecar passengers, horse riders and users of mobility scooters. For pillion passengers on motorbikes this means the £5,000 PSLA threshold does not apply: their RTA personal injury claims retain the £1,000 small-claims-track injury limit and are valued conventionally by reference to the Judicial College Guidelines rather than the whiplash tariff. The conventional valuation of motorbike-pillion injuries tends to be materially higher than the tariff equivalents because the injuries are usually more severe.

A motorbike pillion with whiplash from a low-speed shunt is therefore valued meaningfully higher than a car passenger with the same whiplash duration, because the tariff does not apply and the case is on the ordinary judicial scale. A pillion with serious injury - fracture, head injury, road rash, ligament damage - is valued at substantially higher figures, often into five and six figures for serious cases. A panel solicitor will register the claim under the pre-action protocol, instruct full medical evidence and negotiate or litigate the claim on the conventional civil track.

Seatbelt non-use and Froom v Butcher contributory negligence

Under section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, all car passengers aged 14 and over must wear a seatbelt. Children under 14 must use an appropriate child restraint or seatbelt under section 15. The driver is responsible for ensuring child passengers comply; adult passengers are responsible for their own compliance. Non-compliance is a criminal offence but it also affects civil compensation: damages are reduced for contributory negligence under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 by reference to the tariff in Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286.

Froom established three tariff deductions: 25% where the seatbelt would have prevented the injuries entirely; 15% where it would have reduced their severity; no deduction where the belt would have made no material difference to the outcome. The defendant insurer must plead and prove the deduction; the burden is on them, not on the claimant. The engineering evidence - seatbelt marks on the body, belt-load marks on the belt itself, the airbag deployment pattern, the deceleration profile - usually settles the point. Where engineering evidence is inconclusive the parties either negotiate a percentage or the issue goes to trial.

The 25%/15%/0% tariff has been remarkably durable; nearly 50 years after Froom it remains the practical starting point on every belt case. The Court of Appeal has revisited the principle from time to time but has resisted refining the tariffs further - the headline figures provide certainty and consistent application across the system. Bus and coach passenger seatbelt rules are different; many older coaches do not have belts fitted, and the duty to use them only arises where they are available.

Child passengers, litigation friends and court approval

A child passenger (under 18) cannot themselves bring legal proceedings. The claim is brought on their behalf by a litigation friend under Part 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules, usually a parent or guardian. The three-year personal-injury limitation clock under section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 does not start until the child’s eighteenth birthday under section 28 of the same Act, giving them until 21 to issue proceedings - although in practice the litigation friend usually pursues the claim promptly so the evidence is fresh.

Any settlement reached on behalf of a child must be approved by the court under CPR 21.10. The approval hearing is short and informal; a district judge satisfies themselves that the settlement is in the child’s best interests, often with the child present. The funds are then paid into court under CPR 21.11 and held in a court-controlled investment account until the child turns 18. The investment is typically through the Court Funds Office in a low-risk fixed-rate account; the child can apply for early release of part of the funds in defined circumstances (educational needs, medical needs).

CityGrip’s panel solicitors handle child-passenger claims under the same pre-action protocol arrangements as adult claims, with the additional procedural overlay of Part 21 and the court-approval requirement. Referrals involving child claimants are handled with particular care: the litigation friend is the contractual client and signs the retainer; the child’s best interests are paramount throughout.

Public service vehicles: buses, coaches and trams

Bus, coach and tram passenger claims fall under the same legal framework as car-passenger claims but with operational complications. Public service vehicle operators carry compulsory third-party insurance under section 143 of the 1988 Act and are usually heavily insured beyond the statutory minimum. The operators are well-represented in litigation and their insurers tend to take robust opening positions on liability and quantum. Police accident reports, on-board CCTV (a routine fixture on modern fleets) and witness statements from other passengers are the principal evidence.

Sudden-braking claims on buses and coaches are a particular category. The driver must show that the brake application was reasonably necessary, typically because of an emerging hazard such as a pedestrian stepping out, a vehicle cutting in or a sudden traffic stop ahead. A gratuitous or reckless emergency stop that throws standing passengers around the cabin can give rise to a claim against the operator under the ordinary duty of care between driver and passenger, even where there is no collision. The on-board CCTV is usually decisive on these claims.

Trams are governed by separate rail regulation under the Office of Rail and Road, but for personal injury purposes the same Road Traffic Act framework applies on shared road infrastructure. Tram-only operations (segregated track) fall under the railway regulatory regime and personal injury claims follow the same negligence principles but with different procedural touchpoints. Specialist legal advice is essential on tram claims because of the regulatory overlap.

When the driver of your vehicle was uninsured: the MIB exception

Passenger claims become procedurally complex when the driver of the vehicle the passenger was in turns out to be uninsured. The general rule under the MIB Uninsured Drivers Agreement 2017 is that a willing passenger who knew or ought to have known that the vehicle was uninsured is excluded from cover. The exclusion is narrow - actual or constructive knowledge of the absence of insurance is required, not mere failure to check. Most passengers do not interrogate the driver about their policy and so are not caught by the exclusion.

Where the passenger was a willing participant in a clearly criminal venture - a vehicle being used for joyriding, ram-raiding, drug-related travel - the position differs and the exclusion can engage. The case law applies the Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 ex turpi causa principle, which denies civil remedies to claimants whose claim is founded on their own illegal conduct. The reach of the principle has been refined in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, with the Supreme Court adopting a more nuanced range-of-factors approach. In ordinary passenger cases neither principle bites.

Where the at-fault driver was the driver of the other vehicle and that driver was uninsured, the passenger’s claim runs against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau under the standard MIB uninsured driver procedure. The seven-day service rule under clause 7 of the 2017 Agreement applies on issue. Where neither driver had insurance - both the carrying driver and the at-fault other driver were uninsured - the passenger has overlapping rights under the Agreement that should be pursued against both potential at-fault parties on a joint and several basis.

Secondary victim claims: nervous shock and seeing the collision

Some passenger claims include a secondary-victim element - typically where the passenger witnessed a horrifying event involving another vehicle or another person and suffered a recognised psychiatric injury as a result. The leading authority is Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 and the line of subsequent cases that have refined the secondary-victim control mechanisms: a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim, proximity in time and space to the event or its immediate aftermath, and direct perception by sight or hearing of the event itself.

In a road traffic context, the typical secondary-victim claimant is a passenger in a vehicle that was involved in a serious collision causing death or catastrophic injury to a primary victim (the driver of the same vehicle, a family member in another vehicle, a pedestrian). The passenger themselves may not be physically injured but suffers PTSD, anxiety disorder or another recognised psychiatric condition. The claim is for general damages for the psychiatric injury (valued conventionally on the JCG), special damages for any consequent earnings loss and treatment costs, and the standard mitigation requirements.

The Supreme Court decision in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1 tightened the Alcock control mechanisms in a clinical-negligence context. The application to road traffic accidents is largely unchanged because the Alcock framework was always more accommodating in RTA cases where direct perception of a violent event is common. Secondary-victim PI work requires a panel solicitor experienced in psychiatric injury claims; the medical evidence is more contested than orthopaedic injury evidence and the control mechanisms create real recovery hurdles.

CityGrip’s role for passenger claimants

Passenger claims have no property-damage element of their own (you don’t own the vehicle that was damaged), so CityGrip’s usual property-side coordination - recovery, storage, engineer inspection, replacement vehicle - does not engage on a pure passenger file. The vehicle owner’s accident-support service handles the property side; CityGrip’s role for a passenger is the personal-injury referral.

With your explicit, recorded consent and on disclosed referral terms, we introduce you to an SRA-regulated panel solicitor who can register your OIC portal claim or run the pre-action protocol file for higher-value injuries. The firm’s identity, the referral arrangement and the typical deductions from settlement are all explained before any retainer is signed. You retain the right to choose your own solicitor. Related guides: minicab passenger accident claim, personal injury claim car accident, whiplash compensation, no win no fee, injury claim referral.