LIABILITY 0? ROAD TRANSPORT FIRMS IF DRIVERS OVERLOAD

Wanganui Chronicle, 11 March 1947, Page 6

LIABILITY 0? ROAD TRANSPORT FIRMS IF DRIVERS OVERLOAD

LEGAL ARGUMENT HEARD Whether a road transport firm is liable for the actions of a servan employed as a driver, who loads a truck in excess of the limit authorised by its heavy traffic licence, was the subject of legal argument before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, Wanganui, yesterday, when the Transport Department prosecuted Meads. Bros., carriers, Bulls. Commenting that the case would depend on a proper interpretation of the words “to operate,” the magis-

trate reserved his decision. Defendants, for whom. Mr. B. C. Haggitt appeared, pleaded not guilty to a charge that on December 19 last, they did operate a heavy motor vehicle while the load exceeded the maximum for which it was licensed.

Mr. Haggitt submitted that there was no question that the truck was overloaded, but the point at issue was whether the defendants wer e vicariously liable for the actions of a servant in overloading the truck without their knowledge. He quoted legal authority in support of his contention that this was a case where the firm could not be held responsible. It had been aided and abetted in the .offence and did not know it had been committed till the driver reported that he had been stopped by an inspector. On December 19, at 11.30 a.m., he stopped a truck in the vicinity of Wangaehu, said Inspector W. Wilson (Wanganui), who appeared on behalf of the department. The truck was owned by Meads Bros., Bulls, and was driven by Alfred John Matthews. It was loaded with fertiliser from the chemical works at Aramoho and was bound for some destination in the Manawatu.

“The total pay load of the manure was four tons 15cwt., and the tare weight of the truck was three tons 7 cwt., showing a gross weight of eight tons 2cwt.,’* said Inspector Wilson. “The truck was registered in K class for its heavy traffic licence, which would enable a total weight of 74 tons. The overload was 12cwt., which would requir e a vehicle to be loaded in class M. The difference in licence fees would be £2 35.” Mr. Haggitt: You said at a previous sitting of the Court that a certain amount of latitude was allowed? Inspector Wilson: The latitude in overload is a quarter of a ton, but only in the case of manure from the works. So that if this vehicle had been registered in class L there would not hav e been a prosecution?—“That is so.” The driver you stopped was merely an employee?—“Yes.” He has not been prosecuted as far as you know? —“That is correct.” Cross-examined further, Inspector Wilson said orders for road trucks required for carting manures from the Aramoho works were placed by the Railways Department through the Transport Federation’s office in Feilding. A driver would not be aware of the load or fts destination till he reached the works. He was allowed to pick his loads and knew that they were for somewhere within hi s area. The firm operating the trucks would also be unaware of the load. Mr Haggitt submitted that the point at issue was whether defendants were vicariously liable for the overloading. In general law a master was not responsible for the criminal acts of his servant except in cases of absolute liability. The onus was on defendants in this case to see that the vehicle wa s properly licensed, but once it was on the road the onus to see that it was operated according to its licence was on the driver. If an owner connived at such an offence he could be charged with aiding and abetting, but counsel held that the Legislature did not intend to create absolute vicarious liability. “This opens the door very wide,” commented the magistrate. “It could be said to a transport operator: ‘We license you in such a class to carry certain goods.’ But if the driver commits a breach of the regulations, the owner says: ‘You can’t touch me.’ ” Mr. Haggit said that if an owner knew that a load was over the limit and accepted it, he could be held liable. Hubert Meads, one of the partners in the defendant firm, said he knew nothing about the overloading till the driver reported that he had been stopped by an inspector. Drivers were given definite instructions that on no circumstances were they to overload their trucks. . The vehicle involved in the present case was licensed under K for many years, but had since been re-licensed in class I;

In reply to Mr. Wilson, witness said hi s firm had not been prosecuted within the past 12 or 15 years for overloading. “It will all depend on the proper interpretation of the words ‘to operate,’ ” said the magistrate, reserving his decision.

The magistrate commented also that cases were frequently coming before the Court where driver s had failed to carry vehicle authorities. Transport operators who were charged, said that they had told the men time and time again to carry these authorities. The Court had agreed with this view and as a result moderate fines were imposed, but if Mr. Haggitt’s submissions were to be upheld these owners would have an absolute defence.