Driver Held to be User in Appeal Case
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I-IN March -17, in the King's Bench 1.../Divisional Court, the Lord Chief Justice and Justices Humphreys and Singleton heard an appeal by Superintendent Clayton Whittaker, of the Felling (Durham) police, against a finding of Durham QuarterSessions' Appeal Committee reversing a decision of Gateshead magistrates who had held that William Patrick Gifford, a lorry driver, had contravened the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Order, 1937, by using his vehicle which was loaded in a dangerous manner.
It was stated that E. Robson (Gateshead), Ltd., employed Gifford and owned the lorry and the company hired both to John Rowell and Sons, Ltd., brewer, of Gateshead. In June, 1940, the lorry was loaded with boxes and barrels by experienced draymen employed by the brewer, and Gifford drove it along a road towards Whickham. On the lorry, with the contents, were three of the draymen.
As the vehicle rounded one of the many bends in the road a number of boxes and barrels was thrown into the highway and with them one of the draymen, who died from his injuries. Gifford was summoned before the Gateshead magistrates with " using " the vehicle and was found guilty. But on appeal he was successful, the Committee deciding that he was not the user and was not responsible, because he neither loaded the lorry nor had anything to do with that work and was driving under the instruction of experienced drafmen.
Superintendent Whittaker now challenged that decision, it being contended on his behalf that the person who drove must be held to be the user. For Gifford it was submitted that the user was not the driver, because he was not in charge of the lorry but was merely acting under instructions.
Their lordships reversed the decision of Quarter Sessions and restored the finding of the police court, thus allowing Superintendent Whittaker's appeal, with costs.
The Lord Chief Justice said the question was a simple one and it eseemed to be impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that, on the facts of this case, the person using the vehicle was the driver. It might be that 'the person in charge might also be the user but that the driver was the user was beyond doubt.