know the law
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Les Oldridge, AMIRTE, MIMI
The Construction and Use Regulations (13)
REGULATIONS 68 to 75A deal with the maximum permitted weights for the various types of vehicles. However, as these limits are at present under review I do not propose to discuss them at this stage but will return to the subject later on.
Regulation 76 (i) deals with the maintenance of vehicles. It requires that they are maintained so as not to be dangerous. This section is extremely important, particularly with the present emphasis on proper maintenance brought about by operators' licensing.
The Regulation requires that all motor vehicles and trailers and all their parts and accessories shall at all times be in such condition that no danger is caused or is likely to be caused to any person on the vehicle or on the road. The number of passengers carried, the manner in which they are carried, the weight, distribution, packing and adjustment of the load must be such that no danger or potential danger is caused.
Specific parts Specific parts which are dangerous often create offences against other sections, defective brakes, steering, tyres and speedometers, for example, are dealt with in special Regulations, but Regulation 76 covers any other defects where the prosecution can prove that danger was caused. A cracked chassis frame member, a broken spring leaf or a faulty door catch are the type of defects which may well form the basis of a successful prosecution under this Regulation.
A split wing with a jagged edge facing forward and likely to catch in a pedestrian's clothing; the rear door of a van not properly fastened and swinging open and shut; a driver's seat not properly fastened to the floor of the vehicle; a badly worn trailer coupling or fifth-wheel and slack wheel nuts are further examples of defects which may lead to a summons under Regulation 76.
Detached trailer
There have been some stated cases of particular interest to the commercial vehicle operator on this subject. In F. Austin (Leyton) Ltd v East (1961) Crim LR 119, the defendants used an articulated lorry on the road and the trailer unit became detached and slewed across the road. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that it was impossible to say that the vehicle had not been properly maintained and that there must have been some latent defect in the locking mechanism as a result of which the two parts of the vehicle became
disconnected and that in the absence of any failure to maintain the conviction should not stand.
It was held that this Regulation was absolute in its terms and was directed to the vehicle. It imposed an obligation that the vehicle at all times, that was to say, at any moment of the journey, must be in such condition that no danger was caused to a person on the road and, therefore, even though the trailer had become disconnected because of some latent defect in the locking mechanism — which was probably the case — it could not be said that /he offence had not been committed. When an offence did occur in such circumstances justices had ample powers to deal with it as a matter of mitigation but the justices were justified in finding the offence proved and the appeal would be dismissed.
Showman's lorry
In O'Neill v Brown (1961) 1 ALL E.R. 571, the defendant was prosecuted for using a trailer towed by a lorry when the towbar was not in such a condition that no danger was likely to be caused. The facts briefly were these: the appellant was a fairground
showman and he towed out of a fairground, and along the road, a trailer. A metal ball unit was attached to the lorry and on the trailer drawbar there was a socket which fitted over the ball on the lorry when the trailer was connected to the lorry.
After travelling some distance along a bumpy patch of the fairground, then along a smooth surface of road and another bumpy road, the trailer became disengaged from the lorry and plunged across the road into a motorcycle travelling in the opposite direction. The driver of the motorcycle was killed and his passenger injured. There was evidence that there was no apparent defect in the towbar and ball unit. It was held that this Regulation means that the vehicle parts and accessories should not only be in good repair but in efficient working order. Where, as in this case, the ball and socket coupling was in good repair but improperly coupled, it was not in efficient working order and there was a breach of the Regulation.
It would seem from these last two cases that there is little chance of a defendant escaping conviction on a charge of this kind if the prosecution can prove that there was some defect on a vehicle or trailer whereby actual or potential danger was caused.
However, evidence called by the defence to prove that the maintenance of the vehicle was adequate and that the defect must have occurred only a short while before contravention was detected and that it could not have been foreseen, must impress the magistrates. Although it will not prevent z conviction it should result in a small penalty or even an absolute discharge. This wil certainly be helpful when the operator': licence is due for renewal and thc maintenance record is being considered by the LA.