AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No blame for overload

8th February 1990
Page 33
Page 33, 8th February 1990 — No blame for overload
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?

• Russell Davies (Europe) has been given an absolute discharge, after admitting a 2.9% train weight overload before Richmond Magistrates.

The court was told that an artic, carrying butter, was check-weighed at the Scotch Corner dynamic axle weigher and was found to be overloaded by 1,110kg, or 2.9% on the train weight.

Gary Hodgson, defending, said the butter was being carried between Scotland and Brussels. The customs note stated the load was 22,000kg. Packaging accounted for 440kg, the tractor unit weighed 7,460kg and the semi-trailer 8,480kg, which gave a train weight just over 38 tonnes. He pointed out that the prosecution obviously did not blame the driver, otherwise they would have brought proceedings against him. So how could the company be guilty when the vehicle was loaded miles away from its Felixstowe base, Hodgson asked.

Russell Davies drivers were told to check documents carefully, and if in any doubt about overloading to check weigh.

Hodgson said the Group, which runs more than 400 vehicles, had not been negligent and was not guilty of the offence. He said there was a statutory defence to overload ing, which in certain circumstances allowed an excess of as much as 5%.

In this case, the excess was less than 3% and if you deduct the margin of error on dynamic axle weighers, it was something like 1%. Hodgson referred magistrates to the High Court case of Hart vs Bex, which concluded that defendants who were morally blameless, ought to be given an absolute discharge.

Tags

Organisations: UN Court, High Court
Locations: Brussels

comments powered by Disqus