Claim No 3NE90035
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE DISTRICT REGISTRY
BEFORE ANTHONY ELLERAY QC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT
JUDGE
1 ^ AND 2 ^ MARCH 2016 AND JUNE 2016
BETWEEN:
PETER JONATHAN EDWARDS
Giaimant
and
(2)
(1)
SITA (UK) LIMITED
HARGREAVES WASTE SERVICES LIMITED
Defendants
JUDGMENT
This has been the trial of a preliminary issue as to the liability of Hargreaves
Waste Services pic ("Hargreaves") to the Claimant ("Mr Edwards").
Hargreaves was the employer of Mr Edwards when the latter suffered multiple
fractures to an elbow when the heavy goods vehicle ("HGV") he was driving
for Hargreaves rolled or toppled over on 24 August 2012.
2.
Mr Edwards and Hargreaves have been respectively represented before me by
Mr Axon and Mr Snowden.
3.
Hargreaves is a substantial company which deals with waste management It
has a relevant division with some 180 HGVs comprising "tractor" and
"trailer" vinits.
Such HGVs are used to transport waste to incinerators or
landfill sites.
4.
'
Mr Edwards was an experienced HGV drivCT. He was bom in 1957. He
qualified as an HGV driver in 2003. He was employed as such by Hargreaves
^JCtober 2010, although he had driven for Hargreaves as an agency HGV
driver for some months before.
5.
,
Mr Edwards was to have some assessment and training as a driver by or for
Hargreaves. On 11 October 2010 he passed a driver assessment test by Mr
McFarlane, a qualified assessor. On 25 and 26 October 2010 Mr Edwards
took part in a driver induction programme, the aspects of which he rated as
excellent. On 24 January 2011 Mr Edwards completed a "SAFED" (Save and
Fuel EfScient Driving) test again with Mr McFarlane. On 20*'' April 2012 he
was assessed as satisfactory on a follow-up course.-
6.
It is fair to observe that such assessment training did not address theriskof an
HGV rolling or toppling over or attendant concerns about speed or the nature
ofbends in the road.
7.
Mr Edwards was to drive 60,000 - 90,000 miles a year for Hargreaves.
8.
Some of Mr Edwards' work involved the transfer of household waste from
sites of SITA (UK) Limited' ("SITA") with whom Hargreaves had a waste
transport contract. Mr Edwards regularly collected waste from a SITA site at
North Road Estate, Berwick, Northumberland TD30 lUN.
9.
Mr Edwards normally collected from SITA full trailer-loads of household
waste which he took to an incinerator in Middlesbrough.
However, about
once a month he collected landfill waste, such as mattresses, which could not
be incinerated.
10.
On 24* October 2012 Mr Edwards drove to the Berwick site to collect a
landfill load which he expected to comprise mattresses. He was driving a
Scania HGV regisfration number NJ60 ZDY.
He drove it onto the
weighbridge. Unladen, it was about 17 tonnes. He then took off the sheet
over the trailer and reversed into a loading pit. He then left the loading area
For SITA health and safety reasons. His trailer was then loaded by a SITA
employee with mattresses up to about two-tWrds depth which was then
overtopped with other waste (including road sweepings), Mr Edwards was
then told the loading was finished. He put the sheet back over the trailer and
went again onto the weighbridge. The loaded weight was 25 tonnes.
It •
appears that the mattresses may have weighed about 2 tonnes and the balance
of weight in the load was from the overtopping with road sweepings and other
waste; The total laden weight was within the 44 tonne capacity of the tractor
and trailer.
11.
Mr Edwards' then destination was a landfill site at Path Head, Blaydon. His
route-was south to Newcastle and then to cross the Tyne over Scotswood
Bridge to Gateshead. Over the bridge he had to filter left onto a slip-road
which swings relatively acutely anticlockwise down and round to enable a
vehicle to drive on the road beneath. The slip-road's main single track is the
upper part of the camber. The lower part is hatched with gaps in the hatching
next to the single carriageway.
Vehicles can pass onto the hatched area if
there is a safe exit back onto the single carriageway.
12.
On 24 August 2012 Mr Edwards reached the slip-road at 2.15pm.
His
joumey had been 15 minutes longer than usual because of traffic. When Mr
Edwards was about two-thirds of the way around the slip-road, he suffered a
roll-over to the offside onto the camber. He suffered seriousfracturesto his
elbow.
13.
On 3"^ September 2012 Mr Edwards gave a statement to Hargreaves. He said
that there had been nothing unusual about the loading in Berwick, He said
there had been a bulge in the aluminium offside of the trailer, but that
disappeared as he pulled off the weighbridge. He had noted that the-nearly
frill load was heavier than normal for a landfill load. He said that he would
have been driving at no more than 15 miles per hour over the Scotswood
Bridge.
14.
In his first witness statement Mr Edwards placed reliance upon the figures
Hargreaves had reported to him relating to speed and as shown by the
tachograph and GPS Mastemaut (tracking equipment) on the vehicle which
showed that he was travelling at less than 14 miles an hour. By his second
witness statement he referred to being infonned of 14 km per hour at the point
of roll-over, although he acknowledged some suggestion that there may have
been a misreading by Hargreaves.
15.
Mr Rutherford was a transport manager with Hargreaves and was Mr
Edwards' line manager at the time of the accident. On 8 September 2012 Mr
Rutherford investigated the accident and carried out a "simulation" by riding
the relevant slip-road with an experienced driver, Mr Weirs, in a similar trailer
and tractor loaded to a similar weight, although containing incinerator rather
than landfill waste.
They were able to negotiate the slip-road at speeds
variously up to 25 miles per hour without incident
Mr Rutherford's report
to Hargreaves referred to the 11-14 Kmph reading. It also referred to a mobile
call Mr Edwards had made to another driver, Mr Southeran, during his trip
soutii on 24 August and referred to the load bulging and feeling "weird". Mr
Rutherford's conclusion was that the SITA loading in Berwick may have been
incorrect. In context, he was referring to the 2 tonnes of mattresses under 23
tonnes of waste. He also considered that Mr Edwards may have been at fault
in not checking the loading at Berwick (given the bulge apparent on the
weighbridge) and not stopping to check matters when on the road south the
trailer and tractor felt weird as Mr Southeran was reporting him as saying.
Mr Rutherford's report was referred to Mr Boddy who was responsible for
^
health and safety. He agreed with Mr Rutherford that the root cause was the
loading ofthe waste and Mr'Edwards should have caused the load to be tiken
off and be re-loaded.
16.
Mr Boddy issued for Hargreaves in September 2012 a "Safety Alert"
conceming roll-over and incoirect loading. It advised that where there was a
designated area or secure platform on site for the purpose, the driver should
check the loading.
17,
In his first witness statement Mr Edwards said that the vehicle was on 24
August 2012 "handling as usual" and that the load was "driving okay ... no
problem" and Mr Edwards said that he was "not concemed about the load."
Mr Southeran was to make somewhat inconsistent statements conceming the
contents of his telephone , call with Mr Edwards when Mr Edwards was en
route that day. There were inconsistent statements made for Mr Edwards and
for HargreaveSi He has not been called before me.
18.
Both Mr Rutherford and Mr Boddy were called before me by Hargreaves. Mr
Boddy continued to express surprise at the roll-over at 24 miles.per hour, a
speed at which experts were to consider the trailer and unit were likely to roll
over.
Mr Rutherford was tested about another two roll-overs suffered by
Hargreaves vehicles in January 2013, one of which was found by Hargreaves
to be tiie caused by their driver speeding and the other a driver hitting a kerb.
He continued to express concern at placing mattresses beneath heavier waste
matter.
19.
The results of the three roll-overs were that Hargreaves was to give a "toolbox
talk" to drivers about the need properly to secure loads and for loads to be
evenly mixed or for heavy loads to be at the bottom and to ensure that comers
were not entered at excessive speeds. Drivers were reminded that they were
ultimately responsible for the load carried in their vehicle, whether or not they
were involved in its securing.
20.
The three roll-overs led to an inspection by Mr Kingston ofthe local Health
and Safety Executive.
He questioned Mr Boddy conceming Hargreaves'
systems and the three roll-overs. Mr Boddy recalls Mr Kingston was satisfied
with Hargreaves' management systems which in many areas he observed were
best procedure. No action was taken against Hargreaves by HSE ia relation
to any ofthe roll-overs.
21.
On 21 March 2013 Mr Edwards issued his claim initially simply against
SITA. He alleged in context incorrect loading in breach of duty of care at
common law and in alleged breach of certain statutory regulations. SITA
firmly denied hability or breach of regulation. It blamed Mr Edwards for the
roll-over.
Its allegations included the assertion that Mr Edwards failed to
steer a correct course, cutting onto the hatching. It alleged that Mr Edwards
had travelled too fast to negotiate an acute bend safely. Further, it alleged
negligence against Hargreaves in relation, for example, to Mr Edwards not
stopping when the load felt weird or thait trailer not feeling right Further, it
alleged amongst- other matters a failure on Hargreaves' part to train Mr
Edwards as to the risk of toppling which can occur at excessive speed. It
issued a Part 20 claim against Hargreaves.
That led Mr Edwards to join
Hargreaves as a Defendant and Hargreaves to issue its own Part 20 claim
against SITA, blaming the accident on incorrect loading. Following a joint
settlement meeting in October 2015, Mr Edwards discontinued his claim
against SITA and SITA and Hargreaves dropped their claims agauist each
other. On-17 February 2016 HHJ Freedman dismissed an application by Mr
Edwards for permission further to amend his Particulars of Claim to resurrect
a claim that the trailer was badly loaded and/or that Hargreaves knew of such
bad loading.
22.
In the event, the amended claim of Mr Edwards against Hargreaves alleges
negligence in failing to advise adequately or at all conceming HGVs when
loaded as was the HGV of Mr Edwards at the time of the accident, and in
particular (a) to warn of the dangers of toppling over when driven round
comers and (b) as to the correct manner of driving an HGV and in particular
the speed at which it was likely to topple over.
23.
The claim against Hargreaves had also adopted SITA's pomts of defence
which made allegations against HargreaveSv Those had included a failure of
Hargreaves to provide Mr Edwards with adequate training and instmction, in .
particular on the safe loading and inspecting and securing of loads prior to
journeys and in failing to ensure Mr Edwards followed safe driving
procedures and in particular stopped driving in circumstances where the load
felt "weird" and the traUer did not feel right or i f he observed the load
'T5ulging" during the course of driving and in failing to ensure that Mr
Edwards pulled over and checked the load in such circumstances. Given the
discontinuance of the case conceming improper loading by SITA and the
factual case advanced by Mr Edwards at trial that the tractor and trailer were
handling as usual and that he was not concerned about the load prior to the
accident, those points of claim have not had relevance at trial. The claim had
•also sought to repeat against Hargreaves breach of various statutory
regulations that had been alleged as against SITA, but no such assertions have
been maintained at trial. No breach of The Provision and Use of Work
Equipment Regulations 1998 has been pleaded or alleged against Hargreaves.
24.
Material points of defence by Hargreaves include:
(i)
Mr Edwards was a properly trained and qualified HGV driver,and that
such training would have included risk of roll-over and how to avoid
that risk.
(ii)
Mr Edwards in common with all of Hargreaves' drivers underwent
continuous CPC (Certificate of Professional Competence) training and
ongoing driving and training and assessment
(iii)
The HSE on inspection and consideration of Mr Edwards' driving and
training records had no concems and took no action in relation to his or
the other two roll-overs that have been mentioned.
(iv)
It was not practicable to train Mr Edwards as to the precise speed at
which a roll-over could be avoided on any given bend without precise
knowledge (which Hargreaves did not have) of the nature and weight
of the load and the maimer in which it had been loaded.
(v)
Mr Edwards' own case is that he would have stopped had he been
concemed that the vehicle had not been handling properly and that he
believed that he was travelling at less than 14 miles per hour when the
vehicle toppled..
10
(vi)
The want of criticism of fraining in Mr Edwards* (first) witness
statement.
25.
Each of Mr Edwards, SITA and Hargreaves has had the benefit of reports,
from experts into reconstruction of the accident
Mr Edwards' expert has
been Ms Holland, a Forensic Investigating Engineer. Her tachograph output
analysis put Mr Edwards' speed at between 17 and 21 miles per hour at the
point of roll-over.
Her view was also that the trailer would have been
significantiy less stable with (lighter) mattresses laid at the bottom with
'(lieavier) waste on top to that of a more nonnal load.
SITA's expert was Mr
Heppell, a Forensic Engineer. His views included that Mr Edwards had gone
too fast into the bend on the slip-road and that he had had to move into the
hatched area when realising that he had entered the bend with too much speed.
HBJconsidered that the trailer, would have been stable with the mattresses
loaded at the bottom.
Hargreaves' expert has been Dr Leek.
His report
considered that the speed had been between 22 and 33 miles per hour when it
began to topple. Further, his views included that if the speed was m fact only
22 to 25 miles per hour that it was likely that it the (manner of) loading that
had been the principal cause of the accident
26.
By a joint statement the experts discussed their differences of opinion in
relation to tiie speed.
Their views were Ms Holland (roll-over at 17 - 27
miles per hour, 27 probably being an overestimate), Mr Heppell (17 - 22
11
miles per hour) and Dr Leek (22-25 miles pef hour). They continued to set
out their differences relating to questions of the loading. Mr Heppell made
some perhaps unsurprising general points that a driver of an HGV is' much
more vulnerable to disaster in the normal course of driving as he would be
operating close to tiie limit of stability of his vehicle with the penalty of nonrecoverable roll-over i f he exceeds that limit. He further observed that the
truck driver needs to be conservative and make his adjustments prior to
entering a bend. He repeated his view that the selection of an unusual course
into. a hatched lane along with continuous deceleration throughout plainly
suggested that the driver was developing awareness that he had not prepared
for the situation in time to negotiate the bend safely. He observed that by the
time matters had got to the point of the roll-over the situation was likely to be
beyond recovery.
I should perhaps observe that Mr Heppell had made in
October 2014 a second statement having considered the evidence of a Police
Officer who has not been called before me but who formed the view that the
load may have been a problem.
Given the discontinuance of the incorrect
loading claim against SITA, Mr Edwards has not through Mr Axon at trial
sought pennission to rely on that second statement or made reference to i t
27.
Given the discontinuance of the incorrect loading claim, only Ms Holland and
Dr Leek attended to give evidence before me on 3 March 2016. They agreed
in relation to a number of matters including thefiguresas to wheel speeds of
the tractor unit They agreed that deceleration on the slip-road was from 33
12
to 17 miles per hour and a speed of 17 miles per hour whenflierewas the rollover.
28,
I conclude on the evidence that I have heard that at least a cause of flie rollover on the relevant acute bend was excessive speed given' the fully loaded
trailer. I consider tiiat possibly because of the speed of the attendant traffic
Mr Edwards was probablytiavellingtoo fast over Scotswood Bridge at the
point that he turned into the slip-road and that the cutting into the hatched area
was the result of compensating for the excessive speed.
"19.
I agree with Mr Snowden that in essence, therefore, this is a case where Mr
Edwards, a qualified and experienced HGV driver driving and towing his
trailer within its designated weight, was driving what must be taken to have
been essentially a normal load when he lost control and it rolled over on a
sharp bend. That does speak for itself as evidence of some negligence by Mr
Edwards.
30.
But that in my judgment, does beg the question as to whetiier Hargreaves in
breach of duty was also a cause or contributor to the accident
31.
Hargreaves, of course, owed Mr Edwards a duty to have regard for his safety
as one of its drivers. The nature of its duty has included taking measures for
his health and safety from physical harm.
13
Charlesworth, & Percy on
Negligence (13th ed) at 11.02 makes a stiaightforward point that the duties of
an employer to employees is to take reasonable care for their safety.
C/iflr/ejwor//i at 11-69 observes:
"The duty to prescribe a safe system of work is neither one to
provide perfection nor an absolute duty and it follows that
where some commercial or other necessity requires that an
employer expose an employee to risk, he may be able to
avoid liability for his failing to do so. It is a duty:
'to take reasonable steps to provide a system
which will be reasonably safe, having regard to
the dangers necessarily inherent in the operation.
In deciding what is reasonable, long-established
practice in the trade, although not necessarily
conclusive, is generally regarded as strong
evidence in support of reasonableness {General
Cleaning Contractors Ltd v. Christmas [1953]
AC 180 at 195 per Lord Tucker)/"
Charlesworth continues at 11-70:
"A long-established practice will not avail an employer if he
failed to keep himself up-to-date. Knowledge moves on and
an employer must keep reasonably abreast of developments
which may afford greater protection against a knovra risk or
alert himself toriskswhich have not been identified."
Charlesworth also observes at 11-71:
"In some cases a court would regard a danger so obvious that
a general practice to ignore it is clearly wrong."
32.
Cierk&Lindsell on Tort (21^* ed) at 13-21 cites tiie Court of Appeal in Ammah
V Kuehne+Nagel Logistics Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 11, where it was
"emphasised that in many circumstances, there is a duty on employers to warn
employees of even obvious risks" and citing a passage finm the speech of
Lord Oaksey in the Christmas case atl 89-190:
14
"It is I think well known to employers...that their work people are
veryfrequentiy,if not habitually, careless about theriskswhich their
work may involve. It is in my opinion, for that very reason that the
common law demands that employers should take reasonable care to
lay down a reasonable safe systan of work".
Clerk & Lindsell at 13-22 in dealing with the standard of care expected of an
employer refers to the common practice of other employers in the same as
providing guidance. But it warns of the employer's need to allow for the fact
that the employees may be inadvertent or become heedless of the risks,
particularly where they are encountered on a regular basis.
"This will involve taking reasoriable steps, not only to instruct
employees on safety procedures, but also to ensure the procedures are
A.jtowed".
At 13-24 it observes
"Where there is knowledge of the risk the response of the employer
jSt be reasonable".
33.
Mr Axon raises the question as to whether, given the material risk of roll-over
and injury its result the Defendant took reasonable steps to meet therisks.In
his Skeleton Argument he made certain points. First, he asserted that there
was a clear and obvious risk associated with HGV roll-over. That is correct
He also makes the evidential point that the vehicle was capable of roll-over at
15
speeds of between 22 and 27 miles per hour on the given bend.
He also
makes the point that roll-over is a serious event creating a high risk of severe
injury to drivers- (and the public).
He makes the point that speed
considerations depend in part on the composition and distribution ofthe load.
That point appears dangerously close to seeking to re-open the question of fhe
correct loading. He makes the pointtiiatMr Edwards was not in fact, because
of the circumstances at the Berwick SITA point, aware of the loads he was
tasked withfransporting,thoughtiiereappears common ground that it was for
Mr Edwards as the driver to check his load. He would have been able to
clamber up steps on the side of the trailer. I understand that Hargreaves have
now provided on vehicles some camera means, of inspecting the load.
34.
Mr Axon next makes the point that Hargreaves did not appear to have an
appreciation of therisksof roll-over at the relevant time given the simulation
test at 25 miles per hour carried out by Mr Rutherford with Mr Weirs given
the expert view that full load topping can occur at 24 miles per hour. I rather
think that Mr Rutherford and Mr Weirs in their simulation test were in effect
testing whether the loading was the problem, having already discounted the
question of excess speed because of an apparent misreading of "Mastemaut"
and Tachograph speeds. I do not for a moment question their want of
awareness that laden HGVs can topple i f driven into a comer at excessive
speed.
16 ^
35.
Mr Axon next makes the points that Hargreaves took no steps to address in
advising Mr Edwards as to the low speeds at which HGV loads of waste could
roll over or margin of error (speed capable of causing roll-over).
He also
criticises failures to advise in relation to inspecting loads and stopping safely
and in practice stopping and reporting problems with loading etc.
I accept
that it does not appear from the evidence that Hargreaves gave any specific
advice conceming such stopping, though it does appear that Mr Edwards
concedes and knew that he should have stopped i f he felt the load was weird
or unsafe.
Mr Axon submits that Hargreaves' operating system was
demonstrably unsafe in that it knew or ought to have known that drivers
including Mr Rutherford and Mr'Weirs in tiie given simulation would drive at
speed that were likely to cause roll-over, or suffered or pennitted thatriskand
took no steps to address or reduce the real risk of roll-over. I again make my
observations conceming Mr Rutherford and Mr Weirs made in tiie last
paragraph. Mr Axon prays in aid the fact that Hargreaves did have the three
roll-overs in the space of ten months. That is tme but Mr Edwards was the
first roll-over and the causes of the two other topplings did not involve
excessive speed into comers.
36.
Mr Snowden challenges with force the case of Mr Edwards that an
experienced and qualified HGV driver needs to be specifically trained by his
employers about the appropriate speed (presumably for all sorts of weights
and loads) for going round bends (presumably for each and every bend which
17
he might encounter on any route he might drive in any and all circumstances
r
that may pertain). Mr McFarlane was Mr Edwards' witness and had been
trained as an Assessor by the Road Transport Association who observed in his
statement that he did not think that he "could give advice regarding the speed
at which bends coitid be negotiated," that "toppling can occur if drivers take a
bend too fast," and " I could not say at what speeds an HGV is likely to topple
over when driven round a bend." Hargreaves have called Mr Laverick who
has been employed by Hargreaves since January 2013 as "Fuel Champion and
Dangerous Goods Safety Advisor". The main purpose of his evidence was to
set out the records of Mr Edwards' tiaining and assessment to which I have
referred. He points out that one of the modules in the induction related to
load safety, but the modules did not deal with speed and toppling. He doesobserve that it would not be practicable for Hargreaves to train Mr Edwards
(or any driver) on what an appropriate speed would be to travel for each and
every individual route he would undertake. That is an opinion which he may
not be able to give, but in my judgment, it would not be practicable for
Hargreaves so to train any driver. As Mr Snowden submits, the parties have
not identified any guidance or advice from any body or authority to support a
duty quite as extensive as that which appears to be alleged on behalf of Mr
Edwards. Unsurprisingly, Mr Snowdeii relies on the HSE investigation into
Mr Edwards' accident and two others but not taking any action against
Hargreaves.
18
37.
Mr Snowden submits that he has not been able to find any reported decision in
which employers have been found liable for failing to tiain a qualified and
experienced driver about any speed at which to drive a "normal" load around a
bend and there is no textbook support for such a contention.
38.
Mr Rutherford did in cross-examination recall that he may-have had some
presentation to him by his previous employer conceming toppling. He did not
when a line manager at Hargreaves and investigating Mr Edwards' accident
suggest there should be any such presentation.
Nor did such occur to Mr
Boddy.
39.
I have come to the conclusion that Hargreaves Was not in breach of its alleged
duties of care to Mr Edwards. It is well-known to tramed HGV drivers, as
indeed it is to the motoring public, that lorries and tractors and trailers can roll
over if driven at an excessive speed around comers, in particular when hea-vily
laden. Such would have been obvious to Mr Edwards.
40.
I have considered whether by adding a module to the induction course or
otherwise, Hargreaves should have given drivers -written warnings of the risk
of roll-over if bends are entered at excessive speed. I may have done so if I
had seen guidance to that effect from any relevant body or authority or
practice of so doing by otiier HGVfleetoperating companies. But I have no
e-vidence of such guidance or practice. In that absence, I consider I would be
19
wrong to find that an employer would be in breach of duty in failing to point
. out to a trained and experienced HGV driver such an ob-viousrisk.HGV's can
topple in high winds. I doubt that an employer of HGV drivers is under a duty
to give written warnings of that self-evidentriskor in context to heed weather
warnings. I am concemed with a trauied and experienced HGV driver. In
Ammah the Court of Appeal was concerned with advice, met in that case, to
warn employees generally not to stand on boxes to reach things on high
shelves. That kind of obvious risk waming is to my mind very different to
telling trained and duly qualified HGV driver how to drive. Induction and
continuing assessment of drivers by Hargreaves inevitably concentrates oii
liiu.
' . it to transporting waste efficientiy. One would expect as indeed
happened in this case, accidents to be investigated and found causes to lead to
warnings agamst repetition of perceived failings. But I do not consider that an
HGV. driver needs a general waming about topplingrisks,whether on comers
or otherwise.
40.
Further and for reasons which Mr Snowden has submitted, I do not consider
that Hargreaves was negligent in failing to train Mr Edwards as to the correct
manner to drive atiactorand laden trailer into "an acute bend a^d as to the
speed at which Mr Edwards should have been dri-ving into the relevant sliproad and round the relevant bend on 24 August 2012. Mr Edwards as a driver
had a Highway Code responsibility for his speed.
20
Mr Snowden cites
Paragraph 25 ofthe then current edition of the Highway Code which reminded
all drivers that:
,
"(a)
The speed limit is the absolute rn^iximum and does not
mean thai it i.^ safe to drive .a tliat speed;
(b)
Driving at speeds too fast for the road conditions is
dangerous; and
bencis.?\
Mr Edwar
'
load. I have already u .
"' for his
..lut r. ^ Edwards' excessive .^ioed v. .iS a .^.tuse of
the accident In my judgment, it was the cause of ths accident I agree with
'"owden that ivtf Edwards' negligence was tne soic, . .
- , .^^ig, cause
of the roll-over in question.
41
If T WP'-p "
."
*
^•'—'"--•'^
H<i duty of
care, then I would have doubted whether a failure, for example, to warn
'dhave
been me cause of the accident, i do not imnk ciiat I'ma sucn a Vv'aming bsen in
for ex,2iiipleMr Edwards' October 2010 induction material, th.«t it vr,v)4,ha.Ye
lade n.d
j entry
.ppling outcome.
42. If I were wrong about that and I considered that Hargreaves had failed to warn
Mr Edwards of the obvious risks of roU-over with a heavy load going round
21
an acute comer, I should have foimd Mr Edwards 50% contributorily
•negligent in relation to the accident ui issue.
43. I du-ect Counsel tiiat within seven days of the date of notification of the
handing down this judgment, which will be done in their absence, to try to
agree a minute of order and to rnake written submissions to me as to the
appropriate terms of order and costs and any application for permission to
.. appeal.
: .
• .
.
I direct that pursuant to CPD 39A para 6.1 no official sliorthand note shall be
taken of this Judgment and that copies of this as handed down may .be treated as
authentic
22
Claim No 3NE90035
THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
NEWCASTLE
UPON
TYNE
DISTRICT REGISTRY
BEFORE ANTHONY ELLERAY QC
SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH
COURT JUDGE
1^ AND 2^ MARCH 2016 AND MAY
2016
BETWEEN
PETER JONATHAN EDWARDS
Claimant
and
(1) SITA (UK) LIMITED
(2) HARGREAVES
SERVICES LIMITED
WASTE
Defendants
JUDGMENT
23