AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

OVERLOAD DEFENCES

10th January 2002
Page 39
Page 39, 10th January 2002 — OVERLOAD DEFENCES
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?

• I have been told that if my lorry is found to be overloaded I might get off if I was on my way to or from a weighbridge. Is that right?

• Yes, but there is more to it than simply driving to or from the weighbridge.

Section 41B(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides defences to a person charged with contravening a construction and use requirement relating to any description of weight applicable to a goods vehicle.

Firstly, it is a defence to prove that when the vehicle was being used on a road it was going to a weighbridge which was the nearest available one to the loading place. Or, secondly, the vehicle was going from a weighbridge after being weighed to the nearest point at which it was reasonably practicable to reduce the weight without causing an obstruction of the road.

In the case of Lovett vs Payne [1980] RTR 103 the High Court held that "nearest" meant nearest by road and not by a straight line on a map. And in Halliday vs Burl [1983] RTR 21 the High Court held that a weighbridge was 'available' even though it was cramped and vehicles entering or leaving created a risk to other road users.

Another provision is that where a limit is exceeded by not more than 5%, it is a defence to prove that the limit was not exceeded at the time of loading and that since loading no-one has added to the load. This defence would be available where, say, a tipper loaded with sand became heavier due to rain being absorbed by the load on the journey.

Tags

Organisations: High Court

comments powered by Disqus