Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Robert Whent
Graham,
you seem to enjoy pondering the un-answerable, so get your grey matter around this......
As the 'Owner' of a new PFI road-scheme company A operates a new dual carriageway on behalf of the Highways Agency (Government).
Company B has a number of employees driving company vehicles on the road every day.
Due to excessive speed a vehicle owned by company B and driven by a company B employee crashes killing the driver and an innocent other who was also at work.
Could the family of innocent other or the Enforcing body;
a) Sue/prosecute Company A for failure to provide a safe place of work, breach of statutory duty? Possibly section 3?
b) Sue/ prosecute company B for failure to provide safe plant or equipment and ensure that it is used by a competent person in the manner for which it was designed? Section 2?
c) Sue/prosecute the Government for failure to ensure that the road was designed in such a way that an illegal act (speeding) was managed to a lower risk level?
d) Sue/prosecute the vehicle manufacturer /importer for producing a vehicle that is inherently unsafe and capable of breaking the law? Why is any car capable of more than 70mph in the UK?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Sweetman
Robert,
An interesting scenario. I would suggest that the only certain answer would be by following a court decision. That in turn would depend on how the enforcement body 'angled' their prosecution case, or how the complainant worded their case in the Civil Court.
Having said that, I'll come out of the pulpit and relate to a recent case within my own organisation.
A while ago, there were two separate accidents, involving a fatality in each case, on a MoD-controlled road. I don't know what levels of speed were involved, but the enquiry identified that the road had a sub-standard surface - apparently the drivers braked in suitable time, but due the poor condition of the road surface there was not an adequate braking effect. I believe that MoD had taken the road over from the LA, but had not actually applied the sub-standard surface - that fact would need confirmation.
The outcome was that HSE issued a Crown Censure Notice, the equivalent of a prosection, against MoD.
Whatever your situation, I would also add the maintenance of the road to list of eventualities for a possible legal come-back.
Regards
Jim Sweetman
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
the ansewer would be based on current case law and the law in respect of moptor vehicle crashes, as applied now.
1) police prosecution for speeding if proven
2) charged with dangerous/reckless driving
3) charged with causing death by reckless driving
4) based on outcomes, possible civil procedings against suviving driver for compensation!!
anything else....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gavin Gibson
This question is not so unreasonable - consider the roads around Heathrow airport. They are technically privately owned by BAA but are enforced to the usual standard by the police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.