AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Wheel fell off borrowed trailer firm fined £20

19th October 1973
Page 31
Page 31, 19th October 1973 — Wheel fell off borrowed trailer firm fined £20
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?

• An Isle of Wight haulage company which borrowed a low-loader trailer for one particular job landed a £20 penalty at Penrith (Cumberland) magistrates' court last week, as a result of one of the rear double-wheels coming off on M6 in front of a following car.

Vectis Roadways, Bugle Street, Southampton, pleaded guilty through Mr T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, to using an articulated lorry near Penrith on April 27 when a part was in a dangerous condition.

Inspector J. Carruthers told the court that a Mr J. L. Russ, driving a car south on the motorway, saw one of the rear double-wheels of a lorry, in front of him in the nearside lane, come away on the nearside. It rolled up the grass bank, back across the path of the car on to the central reservation, hit something and rolled back again to hit the offside of the car.

Consulting engineers found the two wheels, still firmly bolted together, had come away from the trailer. There was no doubt the vehicle had been without lubrication in the hub and the bearings had overheated, then collapsed, so that the wheels and hub assembly became detached.

Mr Wardlaw said the firm, which had its principal place of business in the Isle of Wight, was a well known and reputable one, a subsidiary of a shipping company. It prided itself on its high standard of vehicle maintenance.

In that case, however, it did not have a low-loader for a load to be taken from the Isle of Wight to the North and borrowed the trailer only, using its own tractive unit. The vehicle was on its return journey when the mishap occurred.

Added Mr Wardlaw: "The company is extremely angry about being involved, as it was not its trailer at all, but one hired only for this particular one journey.

"The company's reputation has been blemished by what is in fact the responsibility of someone else and it was minded at one time to plead not guilty but I advised that the charge referred to the use of the vehicle not the ownership.

After a brief retirement, the presiding magistrate, Mr G. E. Watson. said: -We have taken into account your remarks about the trailer and fine the defendant £20 with £6.60 costs."


comments powered by Disqus