EV Insurance - charging cables liability

NBLondon

I walked past one the other evening - the cable was under a rubber conduit, there were cones beside it (and the blue flashing light at the car end caught my eye first).    So that's fine.    But if it was just a black cable across a black tarmacked path at night-time and not in the streetlight - that would be different.

[Deleted User]

It will become so common that some agreement on liability will have to be found.

jimjames

daveyjp said:

Who knows, but it will only take a few claims for insurers to require EV owners to also have barriers to prevent people walking between the car and the charging point.

Near me there is one owner that runs their charging cable from the car, across the footpath into their house with no cover or anything to prevent anyone tripping on it. An accident waiting to happen and I'm sure would be excluded on this clause.

[Deleted User] said:

Tripping over a cable between a charger and a car, exactly where any reasonable person would expect there to be a cable, wouldn't put liability on the cable owner.It would be like tripping over the front door step and then trying to claim that the lack of signage and orange chevrons was to blame.

It's not like that at all. The example above is run from the road across a public footpath with nothing to hold cable down and not exactly well lit. With a row of parked cars no way to know that one of them is EV and going to put a trip hazard out for everyone. Common sense works both ways.

DullGreyGuy

[Deleted User] said:

It will become so common that some agreement on liability will have to be found.

There won't be "agreements" but will be cases that are litigated and appealed so set legal precedent. Other cases will then follow that precedent unless there are material points of differentiation.  

SpudGunPaul

Car_54 said:

The 3rd-party liability of a motor policy covers injuries “caused by, or arising out of, the use of a motor vehicle …” [Road Traffic Act 1988, s145].
Is the car being ‘used’ while parked and being charged? I’d suggest not, and in that case Saga don’t need this particular clause to avoid liability.

Are you using when your car is stationary and unattended on a road without a MOT?

Car_54

SpudGunPaul said:

Car_54 said:

The 3rd-party liability of a motor policy covers injuries “caused by, or arising out of, the use of a motor vehicle …” [Road Traffic Act 1988, s145].
Is the car being ‘used’ while parked and being charged? I’d suggest not, and in that case Saga don’t need this particular clause to avoid liability.

Are you using when your car is stationary and unattended on a road without a MOT?

Yes.

Thank you, you've answered my question!

[Deleted User]

jimjames said:

daveyjp said:

Who knows, but it will only take a few claims for insurers to require EV owners to also have barriers to prevent people walking between the car and the charging point.

Near me there is one owner that runs their charging cable from the car, across the footpath into their house with no cover or anything to prevent anyone tripping on it. An accident waiting to happen and I'm sure would be excluded on this clause.

[Deleted User] said:

Tripping over a cable between a charger and a car, exactly where any reasonable person would expect there to be a cable, wouldn't put liability on the cable owner.It would be like tripping over the front door step and then trying to claim that the lack of signage and orange chevrons was to blame.

It's not like that at all. The example above is run from the road across a public footpath with nothing to hold cable down and not exactly well lit. With a row of parked cars no way to know that one of them is EV and going to put a trip hazard out for everyone. Common sense works both ways.

You misunderstood. I was replying to someone talking and charging in supermarket carparks. The chargers are right in front of the parking spaces, and the issue was people taking a shortcut between cars.

[Deleted User]

DullGreyGuy said:

[Deleted User] said:

It will become so common that some agreement on liability will have to be found.

There won't be "agreements" but will be cases that are litigated and appealed so set legal precedent. Other cases will then follow that precedent unless there are material points of differentiation.  

That's what I said.

DullGreyGuy

SpudGunPaul said:

Car_54 said:

The 3rd-party liability of a motor policy covers injuries “caused by, or arising out of, the use of a motor vehicle …” [Road Traffic Act 1988, s145].
Is the car being ‘used’ while parked and being charged? I’d suggest not, and in that case Saga don’t need this particular clause to avoid liability.

Are you using when your car is stationary and unattended on a road without a MOT?

And in what circumstances does such a vehicle create a third party liability? 

facade

DullGreyGuy said:

SpudGunPaul said:

Car_54 said:

The 3rd-party liability of a motor policy covers injuries “caused by, or arising out of, the use of a motor vehicle …” [Road Traffic Act 1988, s145].
Is the car being ‘used’ while parked and being charged? I’d suggest not, and in that case Saga don’t need this particular clause to avoid liability.

Are you using when your car is stationary and unattended on a road without a MOT?

And in what circumstances does such a vehicle create a third party liability? 

If the driver didn't apply the handbrake properly and it rolls away?

If it sets on fire/there is a fluid leak that damages the road or has to be cleared up/the handbrake fails,  due to negligence on the part of the driver (lack of recent servicing)?

However, rather a moot point as continuous insurance unless SORN'd and off the road is The Law.