“Using” a Motor Vehicle
| Date | 01 October 1942 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834200600408 |
| Published date | 01 October 1942 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
"Using" aMotor Vehicle
MOTOR
VEHICLES
(CONSTRUCTION
AND
USE)
REGULATIONS
THE latest decision on the vexed question
of
when is a person
responsible for the use
of
amotor vehicle on a road,
within the meaning
of
the Motor Vehicles (Construction and
Use) Regulations, is to be found in Gifford t'. Whittaker. This
will repay study when fully reported, but a helpful summary
appears in The Times newspaper
of
March 18th, 1942, and may
usefully be considered in the light
of
previous cases.
The relevant provision in the present (1941) Regulations
is No. 94, which is to the same effect as the corresponding
provisions in the 1937 and 1931Regulations, and which runs
:-
"
If
any person uses or causes or permits to be used on any
road amotor vehicle or trailer in contravention of, or fails to
comply with, any Regulations contained in Part III
of
these
Regulations he shall for each offence be liable to a fine not
exceeding twenty pounds."
In
Robinsons
Ltd.,
v. Richards (1928, 2 K.B. 34) the offence
alleged was against Article
III
(3)
of
the Motor Cars (Use and
Construction) Order, 1904, which related to the conditions
to be observed as regards the brakes upon a trailer when used
upon a highway. The brakes were in conformity with the
Regulations, but under the Order an additional man should
have been carried to apply them. The responsibility for failure
to do this was clearly that
of
the owners, and therefore they
were rightly convicted
of"
permitting"
the use
of
the trailer.
This case may be contrasted with a later
"trailer
brakes"
case where the driver was held to be liable as well as the employer.
This was the Scots case
of
Adair
v.
Donaldson
.(1935,
S.L.T.
76), in which the offence alleged was a contravention
of
regu-
lation 63
of
the
1931
Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations, by the use on a road
of
a lorry and trailer whilst
the brakes
of
the trailer were
not
properly adjusted. The
owner, West, was convicted as being by his servant the user,
and Donaldson, the driver, was acquitted on the ground that
he was merely driving for the purposes and on the instructions
of his employers, and therefore was not the user
of
the vehicle.
310
To continue reading
Request your trial