Posted By Nick House I hear on the grapevine that there is about to be new legislation introduced passing the responsibility for the roadworthiness of copany cars from the driver to the company. Could anyone shed any light on this, as although at present I ensure that all vehicles in our fleet are regularly checked, to a cetain extent, I have to rely on the driver's common sense.

Posted By Geoff Just to broaden the discussion. If the vehicle is a piece of work equipment then should there not be instruction ,training and information on the use of the work equipment. Is it necessary to carry out a risk assessment on the types of vehicle on the market? Purchase of company vehicles is generally done on the basis of financial considerations and not safety. If a company buys a fleet of vehicles which have a poorer crash rating than another , does this leave the company open to having failed to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure the safety of its employees? What about competency to drive safely? What is the situation with regard to where employees provide a car and are paid a mileage allowance. They are at work while driving their own car. Is the vehicle then classed as work equipment? What about the maintenance of the vehicle? How far down the line does the employer have to go to ensure that drivers have a current driving licence and insurance, at the time of driving the vehicle? Some companies check driving licences and insurance documentation on an annual basis. Is this sufficient?

Posted By John Webster I still don't think we have an answer to Nick's original question. Regarding the car as a piece of work equipment, the employer would have certain duties towards users of company cars under the Health & Safety at Work Act. In the event of an accident attributable to poor maintenance etc, would the HSE prosecute the owner and supplier of the vehicle - the employer? Might the injured driver be entitled to sue his employer for breach of duty of care by providing him/her with defective equipment? However, under the Road Traffic Acts it is the driver who is responsible for the condition of the car and would be liable for prosecution for driving a defective vehicle and for the consequences of any accident resulting from the defects. The driver could be sued for damages by anybody else involved in the incident, including by work colleagues travelling in the same car. This does seem to be a nonsensical position, particularly for those who have to use the next available vehicle, or share its use with those on other shifts and have therefore no control over maintenance or the way the vehicle is driven/abused. The same could be said for those who hire vehicles. Few of us are knowledgable enough to properly assess the safety of a vehicle in a few minutes in the pouring rain in the middle of a car-park. Changes in the way the legislation works to place the onus more firmly on the provider of the vehicle would surely be welcome.

Posted By Richard Leaving aside the Road Traffic Act, is not the duty to provide safe equipment under PUWERS absolute? I seem to remember a recent case where an employer (Royal Mail?) was convicted when the brakes failed on a company supplied bicycle, even though they were able to prove regular maintenance and due diligence etc. Richard

Posted By Richard George I agree with everything you say, but in the case to which I referred, which was fairly recent, and I'm sure involved a postman/woman, the judge was quite happy that the "equipment" had been properly maintained but he declared the duty to be absolute, and so found the company guilty. So far as I am aware, this has not been overturned on appeal Richard

Posted By Jay Joshi My understanding is that at this point in time, on "public roads", The Road Traffic Acts and its secondary Regulations take precedence over HASAWA and its secondary regulations as far as "company cars" are concerned. In this context refer to paragraph 65 in the PUWWER 98 ACop. The situation may change on the basis of the responses to the Discussion Document on "Preventing at-work road traffic incidents". Obviously there are important civil and loss control liability issues to be addressed. The ROSPA guidance "Managing Occupational Raod Risk" is excellent and credit should be given to ROSPA for its enduring campaign on this.

Posted By Diane Warne The case Richard refers to was Stark v the Post Office 2000. The Court of Appeal ruled that a postman injured while riding his Post Office bicycle was entitled to damages, even though the defect that caused the accident would not have been detected during even a rigorous examination of the bicycle. The PUWER duty, said the court, was absolute. It was a bit of a weird one, because it seemed that the employer really could have done nothing to prevent the accident, because it was due to a hidden defect. They had kept the bike well maintained.