Right, I'm afraid I'm still confused about this. Scenario (1) appears to be:
Scrote nicks my car, runs over plod with it, I'm liable for the injuries to plod (yes, yes, I understand that my insurance will pay out).
So, does that mean that scenario (2) would be
scrote burgles my house, steals a knife, stabs plod with knife: I'm liable for the injuries to plod??
I don't care whether my house insurance, or legal protection connected with my house insurance would kick in in scenario (2), I'm bothered about whether the liability arises at all.
If so, then, in either case, I still do not understand why I am liable for injuries caused by a third party using something which was stolen from me. How can I be responsible for the actions of the thief?
If scenario 2 does not create a liability, then why is it different? Why am I liable if someone injures plod using my car, but not with my knife? What is the difference?
What if someone steals money from me (say, a phishing scam, Nigerian lottery, or just a mugging) and then, with that money, they buy a knife, or a car, and use that to injure plod. Am I liable for that?
What about: someone steals my car, sells it, uses the money to buy a gun and shoots plod?
Or: someone steals my car, swaps it with another thief for a different (stolen) car, then runs plod over with the second car?
And someone quoted the RTA earlier in answer to my question - I'm not an expert so could someone who is point me to the bit that explains what I'm liable for other than that which I do, or allow to be done, with my vehicle?