Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Falling timber was packaging

22nd October 1992
Page 15
Page 15, 22nd October 1992 — Falling timber was packaging
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?

• Bristol-based Kings Heavy

AAHaulage and one of the company's drivers were cleared of using a vehicle with an insecure load after Coleford magistrates accepted that wood said to have fallen from the vehicle was part of the packaging rather than the load itself.

The company and driver Kevin Payne had denied causing danger or nuisance by the load or any part of it falling from the vehicle, contrary to Regulation 100(2) of the Construction & Use Regulations.

Evidence was given by a motorist that as she drove down the A38 a piece of wood had detached itself from the vehicle and had damaged her car. Payne said there had been no wood of any sort on the vehicle.

Defending, Jonathan Lawton argued that if a piece of timber had come off the vehicle, the evidence was that it was part of the packing of the load. Consequently, the prosecution had been brought under the wrong regulation.


Locations: Bristol

comments powered by Disqus