Trailer separation charge dismissed
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AS A RESULT of an accident in which an articulated tractor and trailer became separated; Oliver Hart & Sons Ltd, Coppull, Wigan, had replaced all fifth wheels of Jost manufacture by York fifth wheels, Bootle magistrates were told on Friday.
The company and one of its drivers was prosecuted by the police for using a vehicle in a dangerous condition, it being alleged that the fifth wheel release lever retaining spring and safety catch were in poor condition.
It was said that a dog clip intended to prevent the manual release lever being withdrawn was not fitted and the retaining • spring inside the coupling was missing. The view of a vehicle examiner was that if the dog clip had been fitted the accident would not have happened.
The driver, Christopher M. Jones, said the vehicle had been coupled for at least 14 days and he had noticed nothing wrong whilst driving. No one had told him about a dog clip being required.
Mr Oliver Hart, managing director, said that when it was decided to articulate the fleet he was advised that Jost fifth-wheel couplings were, the best available but since the accident they had all been replaced. At no stage was he told that the dog clip was a safety measure and it did not say so in the instruction manual. It was impossible to check for wear and there was no variance on tolerances.
Mr R. Widgery of Transport Technical Services, Sandbach, said the dog clip was not in his view strong enough to prevent mechanical seperation if the thrust came from inside. Although he was not prepared to say that its absence did not cause the accident, neither was he prepared to agree with the vehicle examiner that it would not have happened had it been fitted. The cause was clearly wear but it was not reasonable to expect a haulier to be aware of it. Internally, the mechanism was covered in grease and there was no other indication of excess wear.
Mr Jonathan Lawton, defending, said the corn pany was charged with "causing" but there was no evidence to suggest a dog clip was specifically necessary to prevent this type of occurrence. It had exercised the greatest responsibility in choice and care of equipment and in the subsequent action taken. To find that the company had "caused" the accident there must have been specific instructions given or a reckless disregard of responsibilities. Nor was the driver in any way to blame.
The Magistrates dismissed the charge against the company and gave the driver a conditional discharge without licence endorsement. They refused defence costs on the grounds that the police had properly brought the case.