AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Absolute discharge for tipper wheel-loss case

15th December 1994
Page 19
Page 19, 15th December 1994 — Absolute discharge for tipper wheel-loss case
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• ARM Construction (Charley) was given an absolute discharge after admitting using a vehicle with defective parts before Wetherby magistrates following a wheel-loss

incident on the M62.

The court heard that the rear offside wheels of a 7.5-tonne tipper became detached.

Defending, John Backhouse argued that as the vehicle had passed its annual test on 17 March and the wheel loss occurred on 8 April, it was reasonable to conclude this was another "lost wheels mystery" case.

The wheelnuts were checked with a torque wrench both before the annual test and immediately afterwards, said Backhouse. The company operated a drivers daily nil defect reporting system and there had been no complaint and no work had been done on the wheels since the annual test. There was a sticker in the cab reminding drivers to carry out daily checks of specific items, including wheel security.

The driver of the vehicle had told police that he checked the wheelnuts every morning before leaving the depot with a torque wrench set to the manufacturer's recommendations. The company was now using a device recommended by the Freight Transport Association on its truck wheelnuts which should prevent progressive looseness.

Producing cuttings of cases reported in CM where absolute discharges had been granted in "lost-wheel" cases, Bathhouse invited the magistrates to say that this was a similar case where the company had proved it was neither blameworthy nor negligent.

Tags

People: John Backhouse

comments powered by Disqus