AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

EN warning to mind law

24th July 2003, Page 8
24th July 2003
Page 8
Page 8, 24th July 2003 — EN warning to mind law
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?

• Recovery operators working on contract still risk facing Corporate manslaughter charges if there is a fatal accident.

Simon Thorne, partner at Reading-based solicitors Clarks, told delegates at last week's European Tow Show's business seminar that claims that your client required you to work extra hours or to run illegally would be no defence if someone was killed.

"Every recovery operator has a duty of care, whether they are working for the police or a motoring organisation, to adhere to health and safety regulations. Operators must stand by the law regardless of what their client says.

"It is vital that companies review their written safety policies now and ensure that their employees understand them and have adequate training. While some companies may say this costs too much, it would be far cheaper to put preventative measures in place than face corporate manslaughter charges."

Thome warns that small companies are particularly at risk of corporate manslaughter charges in the event of an accident, because it is easier to relate health and safety omissions to one or two directors. In a major corporation it is harder because there are numerous layers of management.

• More from the European Tow Show on p18 and 19.

• CM and Contract Journal are running a one-day conference on Corporate Manslaughter on 17 September. Contact: Teresa Murphy on 020 8652 3887.

Tags

Locations: Reading