EMPLOYERS LIABLE FOR MAN'S ACTION?
Page 62
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ASUBMISSION, which, if upheld in the High Court, would impose still further onerous responsibilities on operators of public service vehicles, was made in a case before Mr. Met-. talfe, at Old Street Police Court, London, last Friday.
At the instigation of London Transport, the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner prosecuted Messrs. Windwood's Waterloo Belle Motor Coaches, Lea Bridge Road, London, E.10, on a charge of having " negligently" failed to comply with a condition of their licence regarding picking up passengers. The case was brought under Section 72 (4) (10) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and was dismissed.
The prosecution argued that it was sufficient to prove that the employee was negligent and that it was not necessary to show that the master, whose agent the servant was, was guilty of this offence. Messrs. Win dwood submitted evidence in support of their contention that they had taken every possible precaution against the infringement of the condition. Mr. Metcalfe accepted this plea.
The prosecution applied for a stated case.
COMPANY OFFER TO LINCOLN ALLEGED.
IN a debate at a meeting of Lincoln City Council, when it was reported that the municipal transport department had incurred a deficit of £1,402 in the past year, a councillor stated, that an official of the Lincolnshire Road Car Co., Ltd., had informed him that that concern was willing to pay the corporation £500 a year to take over the city system.
The suggestion of selling the undertaking was strongly contested by some members, " SOUTHDOWN " COMES OF AGE.
ON June 2, Southdown Motor Services, Ltd., celebrated its 21st anniversary with a staff dinner, at which M. A. E. Cannon, director and general manager, and Mr. A. D. Mackenzie, director and traffic manager, were the guests of honour.
The company was incorporated on June 2, 1915, MERSEY TUNNEL QUESTION ADJOURNED.
AFTER a hearing occupying two days, the North-Western Traffic Commissioners adjourned until July 8 the joint applications of Ribble Motor Services, Ltd., and Crosville Motor Services, Ltd., to run buses from Southport to Chester, via the Mersey Tunnel. A previous application of this nature was refused, this decision being upheld on appeal.
Mr. E. S. Herbert, for the companies, declared that they were prepared to assist the Merseyside Traffic Co-ordination Committee to prepare a scheme of bus services, but reserved the right to advance with their own plan if the committee failed to agree: B44