Catriona Patel ruling

mybreakfastconsisted

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... n-lorry.do


A Japanese businessman was killed soon after landing at Heathrow when the taxi taking him into London was hit by a 32-ton lorry on the A4.

The dead man's two colleagues and the black-cab driver were injured in the crash, which closed one of the capital's busiest roads through yesterday's evening rush hour.

Police are interviewing the 44-year-old lorry driver. He was arrested late last night, after a hospital check-up, on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

Taxi after the collision with the lorry on the A4 in Chiswick
Wreckage: the cab after the collision with the lorry on the A4 in Chiswick

mybreakfastconsisted

mybreakfastconsisted

hfidgen

Hopefully this driver wasn't pissed, on the phone and all but disqualified. Or perhaps it'd make it better if he were tbh :?

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted - is it not a little bit double standards for you to post the article and pictures from the Evening Sandard website on here as evidence of what happened when you spend most of your time slagging it off as a rag of a paper

spen666

PS - thanks for the link to the story

Another sad death on the roads - irrespective of blame

beverick

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Thames Materials, apologies.

Presumably, since Putz was employed by them, they would be aware of his convictions and would pay the commensurate insurance, expensive for someone with such a record.

Unless they didn't know?

I don't know for sure, but I would not be at all surprised to learn that the employer has a block policy for all its drivers to drive all of its vehicles. Nor that, although disclosures have to be made to the insurer (a) they are of the "last x years" variety (as they are for private car insurance); and (b) the impact of a record like Putz's over that period of x years on the overall premium is not nearly so bad as it would be for a private individual insuring a private car.

Anyway, I suspect it is all off the point. Had his insurance been voided, this would have been worked out by the cops after the incident, and he would (I suspect) have faced an additional charge.

So we can most likely assume that vehicle insurance was in place.

Regarding driving on company business, companies are obliged in law to ensure that their drivers are 'safe' and that the necessary checks are in place to ensure that their drivers comply with the required legislation. The failure to do so may result in prosection under Section 2 (I think) of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Since 2008 there has also been the possibility of the company (and individual directors or "senior managers") being prosecuted of the offence of Corporate Manslaughter "if the way in which the company's senior managers managed or organised its activities causes a person’s death as a result of a gross breach of a duty of care". ie, and in the case of driving, if it could be proven that they did not have processes in place to perform appropriate checks on their drivers.

Regarding employing drivers who are either unfit or otherwise unsafe to drive, previous (driving) convictions do not, per se, constitute reasonable grounds to reject an otherwise successful application for employment or to terminate an existing contract of employment. There may, however, be policy or selient operational reasons why an offer for employment is withdrawn or the subsequent contract terminated. These reasons must be made clear to the employee and referred to in the terms and conditions of employment. Failure to do so may result in a claim for discrimination or unfair dismissal.

Regarding disclosure of previous convictions, without knowing the type, nature and timing of the previous convictions, and given the reference to convictions over 34 years, I'm certain that the driver will not have been obliged to disclose many of his earlier convictions. They would either not be covered by the relevant employment or rehabilitation of offenders legislation. it is wholly possible (albeit extremely unlikely) that all 'notifiable' convictions were spent and therefore he could claim an apparently clean license.

In any event I have seen no suggestion that the driver was disqualified or that there were any other legal reasons why he should not be employed as a driver at the time of the incident.

Regarding insurance, in all probability, the company's insurers will have either 'voided' the entire claim (unlikely) or more likely will refuse to pay out any claim laid by the company (such as legal costs, or any damage to the vehicle etc).

They may also, and under the circumstances will almost certainly, attempt to recover the claim paid out to the third party (which I assume wil be a susbstantial amount of money) from the company or even the driver.

It is also possible that they will have either suspended cover or even cancelled the policy in consideration of the company's safety record.

Bob

spen666

beverick wrote:

.....

Regarding driving on company business, companies are obliged in law to ensure that their drivers are 'safe' and that the necessary checks are in place to ensure that their drivers comply with the required legislation. The failure to do so may result in prosection under Section 2 (I think) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. .....Bob

I do not seek to take issue with what you say bob, but as a gloss on this:
1. I think a company/ employer must ask the employee to disclose to them any relevant convictions ( taking into account spent ones) to satisfy this duty
2. I think a company can rely on the fact the employee holds a valid driving licence as being evidence he is fit to drive a vehicle of that class Subject to specific knowledge to the contrary

mybreakfastconsisted

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted - is it not a little bit double standards for you to post the article and pictures from the Evening Sandard website on here as evidence of what happened when you spend most of your time slagging it off as a rag of a paper

It's changed owners since I've slagged it off, although it still shares offices and celebrity dog vomit tittle tattle with the DM. The sea change in their reporting of cycling in London has been remarkable, and when other papers are following the FT and going behind a wall online, the Standard is free in paper version!

I can't work out how in the picture the lorry is behind what looks like an intact barrier.

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted - is it not a little bit double standards for you to post the article and pictures from the Evening Sandard website on here as evidence of what happened when you spend most of your time slagging it off as a rag of a paper

It's changed owners since I've slagged it off, although it still shares offices and celebrity dog vomit tittle tattle with the DM. The sea change in their reporting of cycling in London has been remarkable, and when other papers are following the FT and going behind a wall online, the Standard is free in paper version!

I can't work out how in the picture the lorry is behind what looks like an intact barrier.

Ahhh the cost trumps principles eh?

Why do you think I quote from DM - its site is free - even if it is the DM

redhanded

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I can't work out how in the picture the lorry is behind what looks like an intact barrier.

The lorry is actually on the wrong side of the road and you can't see the broken barrier behind it. It looked as if the lorry went through the middle barrier then collided and came to a halt with the barrier on the other side of the road.

I live nearby and saw the aftermath when coming home. The entire area was gridlocked with traffic.

zanes

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I can't work out how in the picture the lorry is behind what looks like an intact barrier.

By the sounds of it from the full article, the lorry started off on the corect side, went through the crash barrier onto the taxi's side, hit the taxi, bounced off the near side barrier on the taxi's side of the road and stopped after hitting (but not going through) the crash barrier again, but further on than where it went through the first time.

Photo in the thread would be taken from the side of the road the lorry started on, looking across to the taxi's side.

spen666

zanes wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I can't work out how in the picture the lorry is behind what looks like an intact barrier.

By the sounds of it from the full article, the lorry started off on the corect side, went through the crash barrier onto the taxi's side, hit the taxi, bounced off the near side barrier on the taxi's side of the road and stopped after hitting (but not going through) the crash barrier again, but further on than where it went through the first time.

Photo in the thread would be taken from the side of the road the lorry started on, looking across to the taxi's side.

Interestingly, there seems to be no suggestion in this story or anywhere else yet as to why the lorry crashed.

I note the driver was arrested after being checked at hospital. this would suggest there was no serious medical fault with the driver.

No suggestion as to whether there was a mechanical fault, speeding, driver asleep or on phone etc.

Also, from the lack of mention of drink, I am assuming this is not said to be a factor

mybreakfastconsisted

redhanded wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I can't work out how in the picture the lorry is behind what looks like an intact barrier.

The lorry is actually on the wrong side of the road and you can't see the broken barrier behind it. It looked as if the lorry went through the middle barrier then collided and came to a halt with the barrier on the other side of the road.

I live nearby and saw the aftermath when coming home. The entire area was gridlocked with traffic.

My brother said the same, he cycles from Barnes to Chiswick and he says it was snarled up but he didn't know why. Godawful incident, the picture really confused me.

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

redhanded wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I can't work out how in the picture the lorry is behind what looks like an intact barrier.

The lorry is actually on the wrong side of the road and you can't see the broken barrier behind it. It looked as if the lorry went through the middle barrier then collided and came to a halt with the barrier on the other side of the road.

I live nearby and saw the aftermath when coming home. The entire area was gridlocked with traffic.

My brother said the same, he cycles from Barnes to Chiswick and he says it was snarled up but he didn't know why. Godawful incident, the picture really confused me.

The picture doesn't show the scene of the lorry going through the barrier- it shows where the lorry came to rest. Presumably the barrier is damaged further down the road

Note also that lorry is facing wrong way, having presumably spun round

mybreakfastconsisted

zanes wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I can't work out how in the picture the lorry is behind what looks like an intact barrier.

By the sounds of it from the full article, the lorry started off on the corect side, went through the crash barrier onto the taxi's side, hit the taxi, bounced off the near side barrier on the taxi's side of the road and stopped after hitting (but not going through) the crash barrier again, but further on than where it went through the first time.

Photo in the thread would be taken from the side of the road the lorry started on, looking across to the taxi's side.

Like the cops say, could have been much worse.

mybreakfastconsisted

A lorry crashed through the central reservation of the road in Chiswick, killing a passenger in a black cab travelling in the opposite direction.

The 44-year-old is being questioned on suspicion of death by dangerous driving, driving while unfit and possession of a controlled substance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11960733