Who pays the price of an insecure load?
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE QUESTION whether a haulier should be held responsible for an insecure load when it had been loaded by the customer in accordance with "normal practice" was raised before Scunthorpe magistrates.
Consolidated Land Services (Immingham) Ltd pleaded guilty last 'week to using a motor lorry with an insecure load on A18 Kingsway at Scunthorpe on4uly 21, 1975.
Evidence was given that at 6.30pm on that date a vehicle owned by the company was moving from Berkeley Circle into Kingsway. As the driver emerged he caught the kerb, causing part of the load of steel coils to fall off. Some rolled down the incline and one hit and damaged a car.
Mr John Holloway, general manager of Consolidated Land Services, said the vehicle was loaded by the British Steel Corporation at a Rotherham works, the method of loading being •that normally used throughout the trade. The coils were put across the platform in a line, chocked, and the rear coil was secured by chains.
Mr J. S. Lawton, defending, said it was clear that if the load came off the vehicle there was likely to be danger to the public. This was not, however, the test to be applied but whether the defendant had exercised the standard of care required.
Although this was an absolute offence a penalty should not be imposed unless there was blameworthiness. If blame was to be attached to the defedant it should be indicated where they had failed.
After a long retirement the magistrates imposed a fine of 00—without giving their reasons for doing so.