THE LORRY DRIVER AND THE LAW.
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Legal Position of a Lorry Driver in the Event of a Mishap on the Road. The Question of Negligetce.
B.1 a Barrister.
THE MOTOR driver of to-day is governed by two sets of laws—civil and criminal. The obligations under each body of laws are quite separate and distinct from those under the other. The fact that a driver has broken a statutory regulation and incurred the penalty of fine or imprisonment—i.e., has broken the criminal law—will not necessarily render hina liable to anyone under the civil law.
For example, to drive furiously and recklessly is an offence against the Motor Car Act, 1903, and other eicts of Parliament, and is punishable with fines. But no one will be able to bring an action in a civil court on account of such furious driving unless he has been iniured by reason of the driver's negligence. So that if the accident arose, not through the driver's neghgence,-but solely on account of the negligence of the other party,' the. driver will not be liable at all to the injured person, although he will still be liable
• to be fined for furious driving in contravention of the provisions of the Acts of Parliament.
• This principle was illustrated some short -while ago in a case brought under the Motor Car Order, 1904, in which it is provided that a motor and its fittings shall be in a condition as not to cause, or be likely to cause, danger to any person in the motorcar or on the highway. A motor lorry had, quite unknown to the driver, a defective axle which, while the lorry was being driven, caused one of the wheels to come off and crash into another van on the highl way. The owner of the van brought an action for the damage occasioned to his vehicle. The jury, when the action was tried, found that since the ;Owners of the lorry had recently had their vehicle overhauled, and had taken all precautions against .
,
reakdown, there could be no negligence on there
art and therefore no liability under the civil law. he plaintiff was accordingly unable to obtain damages in spite of the fact that the lorry actually Was in such a condition as might render the owner liable to the penalties of the Motor Car Order, 1904. The mere fact that the owners of the lorry had broken the regulation did not render them necessarily liable to the injured person. The only ground for claiming damages in such a case is by negligence, and, as we have seen, the jury found there was no negligence , B40 The judges also mentioned at the trial that similar rules would apply in the case of lights on motor vehicles. If the statutory regulations were not fulfilled by a driver this would not of itself give any remedy to a private person. Claims by private persons must be brought under the civil law, based on the usual grounds of damage caused by negligence. The criminal law takes no account of negligence and will punish contraveners of the statutory regulations, whether the offenders are negligent or not.
It is to be noticed that the mere fact that a driver has fulfilled the provisions of the regulations will not give him any protection in an action for negligence. As is well known, drivers may be, and frequently are, held liable for damages caused by negligent driving, although at the time of the negligence they were driving within the speed limit or within the provisions of the Act as to furious driving.
Similarly, the fact that a lorry driver has lighted his vehicle with the proper number of lamps required by the lighting regulations will not afford him any excuse in an action for negligence if, in the particular circumstances of the case, it is considered by the court that the number of lights was not sufficient to -warn the drivers of other traffic of the danger. Fulfilment of the criminal law is not necessarily fulfilment of the civil law obligation to avoid causing injury to others negligently.
Of course, there may be eases in which the one set of facts discloses evidence of negligence or of some other breach of civil law obligations, as well as evidence that a statutory regulation has been broken. Instances of this type of case are not uncommon in the .courts. The driver is, of course, liable to two actions—one for damages for negligence, and the other for the penalty laid down by the statute.