Posted By Geoff Burt PUWER as a vehicle, LOLER in its lifting capacity - and subject to statutory examinations.

Posted By Steve A Durham Tend to agree that this falls within LOLER in the first instance but of course PUWER also applies with regards to construction, design of controls etc Perhaps somebody could offer an opinion on this current dilema. Is a police car 'equipment' under PUWER? The incident involves an officer who inores a dashboard warning light and screaching noises when the drive belt failed. As he tried to turn the vehicle round in a cul de sac the belt wrapped around the steering gear and he crashed. In Reg 2 of PuWER it specifically states that with road vehicles on public roads, the Road Traffic Acts will take prescedence over PUWER. The PC concerned is pursuing a personal injury claim on the the basis PUWER applies and it is therefore a strict liability onus on the employer. (ie, to provide equipment that is safe). However, if the argument falls within The RTA 88, then it is the driver who is responsible for his actions and condition of the vehicle, albeit the owner (employer) may pick up some liabilty but, on the test of reasonably practicable. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

Posted By Steve A Durham Thanks Karen These are my arguments entirely. No he was not being pursued, apparently he was only a mile and bit out of the station and thought he would drive the car back. Unfortunately, according to the lawyers having a good service record and regular vehicle inspection is no defence if this comes under the 'shall do' terms of PUWER. Strict liability applies, the vehicle failed, therefore it was unsafe - liable. We can argue some contributory negligence on the PC's part, but basically the way this new legislation is written as far as I can see it, 'so far as is reasonably practicable' has been thrown out and no longer exists, certainly with much of the civil litigation. Unless anybody can point me in the direction of a previously decided case or legal opinion. Steve

Posted By Jack I'm inclined to think your legal people have a point re civil claim, citing absolute duty in PUWER on maintenance. As in Stark v.Post Office.

Posted By Steve A Durham Thank you for your opinions, certainly food for thought. Martin is quite right, this has moved away from the original question so my apologies for that. It is an interesting point that a police vehicle has a dedicated use, not capable of being used for any other purpose, therefore PUWER applies. It is an avenue we had not considered. Unfortunately of course, this does infer strict liability and no amount of maintenance or inspection, even over and above the manufacturers specification, can be offered in defence. Under this onus, it happened, ipso facto the the vehicle was unsafe.