AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Fatal accident— haulier fined

7th February 1969
Page 38
Page 38, 7th February 1969 — Fatal accident— haulier fined
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?

• Fines totalling £100 were imposed at Workington magistrates court last week on Edward Fye and Son Ltd., haulier, of Whitehaven, who admitted using a lorry with defective tyres but pleaded not guilty to using it with the rear registration plate not illuminated, without rear lights and reflector, and with rear registration plate not easily distinguishable. The company was convicted on all five charges.

One of the company's drivers was fined £30 and costs of £21 2s and advocate's fee of £21 were ordered to be paid.

The case arose from an early-morning accident in November in which the driver of a van died. Mr. G. Mathieson, a consultant engineer, who had examined the lorry after the accident, described the rear lighting arrangements as the worst he had seen, with 11 bad joins in the wiring.

Mr. D. Fye, for the company, said that a tyre fitter, who had been asked to fit new tyres to the vehicle the day before the accident, did not carry out his instructions and had been dismissed as a result. Both lights on the vehicle had been working the previous night.

Two Whitehaven drivers gave evidence that they had seen the lorry with both lights on during the morning of the accident.

Mr. J. N. Marsham, defending, said that there had been evidence at the inquest that the van had been driving on sidelights and there must be some element of blame on the deceased driver.