1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200 
Maintain and avoid danger
Page 160
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
REGULATION 75(l) of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1966 lays down that every motor vehicle and trailer and all parts and accessories shall at all times be in such a condition that no danger is caused or is likely to be caused to any person in or on the vehicle or trailer or on a road. The regulation also specifies that the number of passengers and the way in which they are carried and the weight, distribution, packing and adjustment of the load must be such that no danger is caused.
This regulation is used by the police when there is no specific regulation which deals with the particular circumstances, For example there are regulations dealing with defective steering, brakes and tyres but if the danger complained of is caused by a split wing with a sharp edge which might injure a pedestrian Regulation 75 (I) is used.
One can envisage many conditions which fit this regulation. A loose wheel in imminent danger of parting from its hub; a swinging van door likely to hit passing traffic: a defective passenger door catch; an insecure driver's seat; a rusted or broken chassis frame or broken spring may all lead to a prosecution for an offence against this regulation. It must be emphasized that in each case the prosecution must prove that the defect complained of caused, or was likely to cause, danger.
There are two interesting cases on this subject. In O'Neill v Brown, (1 961 ) I ALL E.R. 571, a fairground showman was operating a lorry towing a trailer coupled by means of a ball and socket unit. The oufit travelled over rough ground from a fair on to the road where the trailer came adrift and stewed across the road.
Examination of the coupling unit shoved it to be in good repair. It was held that this regulation is concerned with the maintenance of parts and accessories and having regard to the mischief aimed at, means that they should not only be in good repair but in efficient working order. Where, as in this case, the coupling was in good repair but improperly coupled, it was not in efficient working order and there was a breach of the regulation.
in F. Austin (i.eyton) Ltd. v East, 1961. Crim. L.R. 45, the trailer portion of an articulated vehicle became detached owing to a defect in the locking mechanism. It was submitted that the lorry was in perfect condition when it left the owner's premises and that the defect occurred later. It was held that the obligation to maintain vehicles so that danger
is not caused is absolute and it is no defence that the defect is latent and manifests itself only during the journey.
One feels, however, that in a case of this kind as the company owning the vehicle were morally guiltless, the police would not institute proceedings and if they did the court would accept this as mitigation in arriving at a penalty.
New Companies
Counties Petroleum Chemical Transport Co. LW. Cap.: £100. Subs.: M. I. Sanders, M. G. Borsey, 10/11, Lime Strect,EC3. Suit.: lace and Co., 10/11 Lime Street, EC3.
C and P (King's Lynn) Ltd. Cap.: £100. Objects: To carry on the business of haulage and transport contractors, etc. Dirs.: C. L. Curtis, 3, Lynn Road, Castle Rising, King's Lynn. J. H. Purdy, 26, King John Avenue, Castle Rising, King's Lynn. Sec.: C. L. Curtis, Reg. Office: Estuary Road, King's Lynn, Norfolk.
Wright, Nam° and Co. Ltd. Cap.: 11,000. Objects: To carry,, on the business of general carriers, etc. Dirs.: M. Nason, 14, Coney Acre, Dulwich, 5E21. A. C. Prior, 5, The Glen, Rainham, Essex. Sec.: A. C. Prior. Reg. Office: 64, Queen Street, EC4.
Arfon Haulage Ltd. Cap.: £100. Dirs.: H. A. Pritchard, MTS. Dorothy G. Pritchard, Angarfa, Cardiff Road, PwIlheli, N. Wales. Sec.: S. H. Davis. Reg. Office: Angorfa, Cardiff Road, Pwllheli, N. Wales.
E. J. Greatrix Ltd. Cap.: £.10,000, Objects: To acquire the business of a haulage contractor carried on by F. S. Greatrix, etc. Dim.: F. I. Greatrix, Beechcroft, Hill Rideware, Staffs. J. F. Greatrix, Hill Ridcware, Nr. Rugeley, Staffs. Sec.: F. S. Greatrix. Reg. Office: Beechcroft, Hill Rideware, Staffs.