1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
• An appeal by Reliance Motors (Bolton) against £380 in
23rd February 1989, Page 22
23rd February 1989
Page 22
Page 22, 23rd February 1989
— • An appeal by Reliance Motors (Bolton) against £380 in
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Keywords :
Law, Canadian Law, Common Law, English Law, Absolute Liability, Indian Law, Tort Law, Criminal Law, Conditional Discharge, Law / Crime, Labor
fines imposed for an overloading offence was accepted by Judge Devlin at Aylesbury Crown Court last week. The company claimed that the vehicle was not under its control on the day of the offence, but in the control of a driver employed by the company.
John F Bleasdale, defending, argued that while the term "to use" usually implied absolute liability, an employer might be charged with offences of which he was ignorant. In this case, the offence was committed hundreds of miles from the company's base. Devlin accepted the defence case, and granted an absolute discharge.