AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Negligence fatal

4th June 1983, Page 17
4th June 1983
Page 17
Page 17, 4th June 1983 — Negligence fatal
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?

E LACK of a notice in the cab warning of the height of a lorry led Durkin (Civil Engineering Contractors) being ordered to pay 064 damages with costs to the dependants of a driver killed en he drove one of the company's skip vehicles under a low ige.

'he company was sued in the ih Court, and it was said that December 1977 the driver, Inis Barry, had driven his licle which was just over 12ft h under an 11ft 6in bridge.

rhe nearside arm of the iicle struck the bridge, it arturned, and Mr Barry reved injuries from which he Evidence showed that the hicle had been travelling at 25 30mph when the accident ocrred.

3iving judgment for Mr Bar ry's dependants, Mr Justice Michael Davies said that there had been no notice in the cab to indicate the height of the lorry.

A vehicle of such a height should have had a clear warning notice whether or not the driver had been warned verbally. To place a warning notice in the cab was a simple, obvious and inexpensive thing to do and the company had been negligent in not doing so.

However, Judge Davies felt that the damages which otherwise he would have awarded should be reduced by 50 per cent because Mr Barry had driven too fast approaching the bridge.

Tags