Person tripped over my outside cable cover whilst charging car...

user1977

vacheron said:

user1977 said:

vacheron said:

If the government really thinks that electric vehicles are the future they really need to consider the millions of people who would work and live in home similar to those of this manager and the OP.  

Which they are, given the OP even mentions lamppost chargers being available. The OP is just too, er, "money-saving" to want to use them...

Ok, "they need to consider the millions of people who don't want to pay triple the price to charge their car just  4-5 meters from their own doorstep".  '

And I expect the differential will decrease as more customers and options become available. Plus vehicle ranges are always increasing. I think the "we must be able to charge at home" mantra is a temporary thing.

DullGreyGuy

MeteredOut said:

What is the burden of proof on the accuser to show that it was the charging cable that cause their injuries?

(Similar to crash-for-cash, I've heard an increasing number of anecdotes of people going looking for charging cables over public highways).

joeythepoey What did this person specifically ask for when they came to the door? Did they want something then, did they want insurance details? Did anyone say anything to them that might have admitted liability? Were they saying they were going legal? Have they (or anyone acting on their behalf) been in contact since?  

Civil law is based on the "balance of probabilities", so ultimately a judge to decide if it's more likely it did happen or it didnt happen. The OP would have to present some evidence to convince the judge it didnt happen or provide an alternative scenario that the judge finds more believable. 

Lets run with the idea that the claimant did have damage to their trousers, they'd likely present the damage as evidence that the incident happened, the OP seems to accept damage/injury has occured so unless they are going to say they think the damage was caused by the claimant cutting a hole in their trousers rather than falling or the neighbour down the road has CCTV of them falling into the road before they got to the OP's house and shows them inspecting the damage etc

The fact that the OP openly admits this is not the first time people have tripped on it will naturally go in the claimants favour. 

facade

Plus, if the Ambulance Chaser Accident Compensation Specialist presents a bill for a couple of thousand pounds the defending insurer will in all likelihood just pay it without question, as it will be more cost-effective than contesting it and loosing.

£500K for life changing brain damage and they would probably want some sort of proof that the claimant did trip over the cable, even if it is just professional testimony that the injuries are consistent with that scenario.

So yes, the streets can easily be filled with people comically "tripping" over cables (co-incidentally caught on a mobile phone camera) and successfully claiming a nice little payout. Even more reason not to run a cable across a thoroughfare. 

I charge mine on my drive. As I understand it, I am still liable if a trespasser trips over the cable whilst (possibly) upto no good.  My defence would be that I had routed the cable away from the path so that visitors would never encounter it when calling at my house, they would have to go past the front door behind the car.

Given that EVs have to be charged by cable (outside) it shouldn't be negligent to use such a cable, positioned where people would have to trespass to cross it. There is some legal right for visitors to walk directly from your gate to your door, but not wander round your property uninvited.

DullGreyGuy

facade said:
Given that EVs have to be charged by cable (outside) it shouldn't be negligent to use such a cable, positioned where people would have to trespass to cross it. There is some legal right for visitors to walk directly from your gate to your door, but not wander round your property uninvited.

It depends on the legal basis on which they are on your land. There are circumstances where people like the Postman, Meter Reader, Police, Bailiffs etc are entitled to come onto your property without being invited or you giving them your explicit consent. You owe them a similar duty of care as someone who you've invited in. 

For true trespassers, inc potential burglars etc, you still have a basic duty of care but it is much reduced and simple signage etc is often considered sufficient. 

Exodi

DullGreyGuy said:

The fact that the OP openly admits this is not the first time people have tripped on it will naturally go in the claimants favour. 

I suspect the OP may omit that point in court, but personally I find it hard to have sympathy for the OP after this omission.

joeythepoey said:

Despite the big yellow line on the covers, people occasionally trip over it

EssexExile

Exodi said:

DullGreyGuy said:

The fact that the OP openly admits this is not the first time people have tripped on it will naturally go in the claimants favour. 

I suspect the OP may omit that point in court, but personally I find it hard to have sympathy for the OP after this omission.

joeythepoey said:

Despite the big yellow line on the covers, people occasionally trip over it

Unfortunately it has been posted on a public forum.

MeteredOut

OP hasn't logged on since posting. Hopefully they'll come back with further details on what the victim wanted.

Okell

molerat said:

MeteredOut said:

What is the burden of proof on the accuser to show that it was the charging cable that cause their injuries?

(Similar to crash-for-cash, I've heard an increasing number of anecdotes of people going looking for charging cables over public highways).

@joeythepoey What did this person specifically ask for when they came to the door? Did they want something then, did they want insurance details? Did anyone say anything to them that might have admitted liability? Were they saying they were going legal? Have they (or anyone acting on their behalf) been in contact since?  

I am sure the vulture claims companies will be all over this as a good income stream. In fairness though that's a clear trip hazard so pretty negligent.

I'd say it's not just negligence, it's a higher level of culpability - reckless - as in the OP has subjectively recognised the risk but has intentionally decided to run it anyway.

People who deliberately run trip hazards across the footpath have no justification for escaping liability.

I live in a "city" but the road I live on has no street lights between midnight and just before dawn.  No matter how prominent or colourful a cable cover was, it wouldn't be visible to anyone at 1am.

35har1old

FlorayG said:

My thoughts are that you are totally liable; when 'official' workmen lay cables they route the pedestrian access into the road around them, you would never have to walk over them. Your insurance will know.
If one of my neighbours did that I would be first asking them not to and if no effect speaking with the council. You're obstructing the pavement, however well you mark the obstruction

It's only utilities that can seek permission to reroute pedestrians around obstructions on the footpath.

mr_stripey

Flugelhorn said:

I would be pretty cheesed if someone left that on a pavement at night, people can have poor vision etc - can't you just charge the car somewhere else ?
 
actually just thinking about it am surprised no-one has removed the cable cover  and "relocated it" 

if you do this - does the insurance company need to know about the hazard ? would they cover you for something outside the house?

yeah.unplug and chuck over the wall. Problem solved!