• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284

Asbestos not fine-proof

Zoom page

18th October 1980

Page 22

Page 22, 18th October 1980 — Asbestos not fine-proof

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?

Please select an option... Headline has errors Article text has errors Article is incomplete Submit

AN OPERATOR has been fined £50 by magistrates in Grays, Essex, after they heard that the driver of the vehicle had let him down. The operator, Barry Earl Rowe, of Newton Abbot, pleaded guilty to running a vehicle that was overloaded on its second and third axles.

Mr Rowe's solicitor said that when the vehicle was stopped at Tankhill Road, Purfleet, on March 3, it was carrying 15 tons of asbestos but was capable of carrying 16.5 tons.

The problem, he said, was that the load had not been distributed properly, which resulted in an excess weight of 8.7 per cent on the axles.

The solicitor told the court that Mr Rowe had warned his driver, James Cox, about the distribution problem and that he was even given a diagram to assist him in loading the vehicle. Despite this the load was still not properly distributed.

It was alleged that the "negligent" driver had let down his employer and that it was Mr Rowe who was to be punished for a fault for which he was not personally to blame. Despite the pleas, Mr Rowe, who was in court, was fined £50 and ordered to pay £10 towards the cost of the prosecution.