AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Company Guilty of Permitting Offence

2nd November 1951
Page 39
Page 39, 2nd November 1951 — Company Guilty of Permitting Offence
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?

ADRIVER employed by Crosville Motor Services, Ltd., was recently fined for carrying 16 passengers too many in a contract carriage and last week the company was summoned at Bangor for permitting the offence. Insp. W. J. G. Lewis contended that " permitting" was implied where a vehicle was left at another person's discretion.

The company pleaded not guilty and Mr I. A. G. Hughes, defending, submitted that there had been no reasonable discretion or liberty given to the driver of the bus to overload it. Quoting Evans v. ,Dell, he said that if Crosville were guilty it must have known that the bus was. overloaded and must' have refrained from making inquiries.

Mr. Hughes said that he would bring evidence to indicate that an inspector was on duty at the point from which the bus started, that there had been no previous complaint from the inspectors or the public, nor by b.n inspector that the volume of work was such that he could not undertake it alone.

William Jones, Caernarvon depot superintendent, said that he had never known previously what had happened in this case-16 people jumping on to a movinn bus. Express instructions were given to drivers that they were not to permit overloading. Stanley Hughes,

Crosville divisional manager, said that he did not know that the bus-was overloaded and that he did not deliberately refrain from making inquiries.

The bench found the case proved and imposed a fine of £5 with 10s. witness's fee