Car owners' liability for the condition of their tyres

[markjay]

A precedence, it would seem:

Car owner with dodgy tyres is jailed over fatal crash

 

[MrGreedy]

Hmmm, something odd about the prosecution and sentence here that might not be totally apparent.

He was a passenger in his car having been out on the lash with his mate, who he let drive and his mate was also drunk. Someone was killed, so I understand culpability there because if he didn't let him drive it would have been TWOK.

However, there is a link made somewhere (not sure where, as I'm not sure I 100% trust the journalistic integrity), about the tyres. The suggestion is that driving round a roundabout at 65mph in the wet, and worn/bald tyres caused the crash, so I just wonder what tyres would need to be fitted so under those conditions and at the hands of a drunk driver the car wouldn't have lost control, being RWD?

Does that mean if he had fitted budget ditch finder pro tyres to the back and the same crash had happened, he would have got off? Does this mean in future situations if someone has tyres with correct tred depth, and they let their pissed up mate drive, they can now refer to this case to 'get off' due to the reported precedence set?

And the article reports "powerful Mercedes" car which suggests V6+, but is of course actually a poverty spec diesel 4 banger.

 

[Petrol Pete]

Long years ago while walking one of the kids to primary school I noticed one of the other kid's moms tyre on the front of her car were almost completely worn out.

I mentioned it to her , she thanked me and weeks later was still driving the kid's to school on the same dangerously bald tyres. She was not driving an old banger either , not that would have mattered.

 

[grober]

More to this than meets the eye methinks

 

[190]

No where that I can see in the media report does it say the tyres were below the legal limit, only that they were raised as near the limit at the previous MOT which could mean anything particularly if the MOT stations primary business was selling tyres. In this case someone died which is terrible and it's easy to say the owner should have changed them which may or may not have saved this persons life.

As a point of principle I have a concern if a judge can send someone to jail even if they haven't technically broken the law. If they were below the legal limit then it was sloppy media reporting but perhaps this is simply down to an out of touch judge having more faith in the absolute accuracy of MOT advisories than we do.

 

[bolidemichael]

I read it in The Telegraph this morning and the tldr is thus:

- Tyres were 'near legal limit' at MOT 7,000 miles previously
- Driver (not owner) was over DD limit and jailed in November
- Driver was accelerating from 65 to 72mph in a 30mph zone prior to the collision
- It was wet, the vehicle was prone to fishtailing as a result of the bald rear tyres
- There is no legal precedent for the charge of 'aiding and abetting death by dangerous driving'
- IT WAS A MERCEDES

 

[Dryce]

As a point of principle I have a concern if a judge can send someone to jail even if they haven't technically broken the law. If they were below the legal limit then it was sloppy media reporting but perhaps this is simply down to an out of touch judge having more faith in the absolute accuracy of MOT advisories than we do.

The issue here is sentencing rather than guilt.

The defendent was guilty of aiding and abetting. The judge has brought up the issue of the tyres as part of his sentencing decision.

 

[Scooby_Doo]

I was under the impression that if somebody gets charged with driving with bald tyres, and is not the owner, then the owner is also charged. I assume there are get out clauses in lease and PCP agreements.
The owner of the Merc was charged as a consequence of this rule ?

 

[Dryce]

I was under the impression that if somebody gets charged with driving with bald tyres, and is not the owner, then the owner is also charged. I assume there are get out clauses in lease and PCP agreements.
The owner of the Merc was charged as a consequence of this rule ?

It doesn't look like the owner was charged with regard to the state of the vehicle.

The owner was charged because they let their vehicle be driven by somebody who then drove dangerously.

The issue of the tyres and their state was then brought up after they were found guilty and mentioned by the judge when sentencing them.

 

[bolidemichael]

It doesn't look like the owner was charged with regard to the state of the vehicle.

The owner was charged because they let their vehicle be driven by somebody who then drove dangerously.

The issue of the tyres and their state was then brought up after they were found guilty and mentioned by the judge when sentencing them.

My reading of this is that the 'aiding and abetting' was related to the fact that the tyres were bald and therefore, the vehicle was dangerous to drive i.e. the driver may have been speeding and over the limit, but the scenario that has been depicted is that the whole circumstance was exacerbated by the poor condition of the rear adhesion to the road surface, particularly in those conditions.

 

[davymead]

Long years ago while walking one of the kids to primary school I noticed one of the other kid's moms tyre on the front of her car were almost completely worn out.

I mentioned it to her , she thanked me and weeks later was still driving the kid's to school on the same dangerously bald tyres. She was not driving an old banger either , not that would have mattered.

If over the years I’d have had a pound coin for ever ‘unbelievably’ bald tyre I’d looked at after being told ‘could you just check my tyre mate’ I’d be buying a retirement AMG.
People’s ignorance of tyre dangers is mind blowing.

 

[markjay]

A little more detail here (but not much):

Redbourn fatal crash: Car owner jailed over worn tyres

Winston Chau died and his mother was seriously injured after a Mercedes hit them in wet conditions.

www.bbc.com

Personally, I think that Henry Reynolds could have benefitted from a better defence team.

 

[Muckypaps]

In a murder/shooting case, the person who supplied the gun also gets charged with murder.
In this case Henry Reynolds supplied the gun.

 

[grober]

In a murder/shooting case, the person who supplied the gun also gets charged with murder.
In this case Henry Reynolds supplied the gun.

The difference there surely is a gun or knife is a weapon whereas a car is not, despite cars indirectly killing a lot of people their primary function is getting you from A to B - Links supply to intent in the case of a gun.
Let's just suppose that the driver had stolen the car of someone's driveway----is the owner responsible for what happens next if his tyres were illegal? There are several points of law that are contradictory here

 

[optimusprime]

And while we are on to tyres this was spotted on youtube in a police chase that went wrong as the spike strip was not removed quick enough and the same police car as tyres belonged to in picture . I wounder who would be to blame if they were in a fatal smash .

 

[Scooby_Doo]

Section 41a, clause (b) ,of the road traffic act , it is an offence to permit the use of a vehicle with defective tyres and that person is guilty of an offence.

 

[tonysmb]

Without reading the trial transcript, I wouldn't jump to any legal conclusions based on the journalist's report.

There are offences of use, cause or permit and an owner, as passenger, might be deemed to be using the vehicle in the same way that the driver was. In certain circumstances, the same can apply to companies 'using' company vehicles when they're being driven on company business by the company's employee.

I suspect that the vehicle would have been examined after the incident so the court might have been in possession of a report outlining the condition of the tyres at the relevant time. The condition of the tyres MIGHT have been deemed to be a contributory factor, but they might just have been mentioned in the judge's summing up.

I don't know the facts so wouldn't wish to guess any further.

 

[pillow]

Well I've certainly learned something.

I was always under the impression that it is only the drivers responsibility to ensure the vehicle is roadworthy before driving it.

 

[Muckypaps]

Without reading the trial transcript, I wouldn't jump to any legal conclusions based on the journalist's report.

There are offences of use, cause or permit and an owner, as passenger, might be deemed to be using the vehicle in the same way that the driver was. In certain circumstances, the same can apply to companies 'using' company vehicles when they're being driven on company business by the company's employee.

I suspect that the vehicle would have been examined after the incident so the court might have been in possession of a report outlining the condition of the tyres at the relevant time. The condition of the tyres MIGHT have been deemed to be a contributory factor, but they might just have been mentioned in the judge's summing up.

I don't k
.

"Judge Kay said the view of experts was that the Mercedes should not have been on the road and the state of the tyres contributed to the collision"

 

[fredfoxuk2]

Section 41a, clause (b) ,of the road traffic act , it is an offence to permit the use of a vehicle with defective tyres and that person is guilty of an offence.

Everyday is a learning day, I did not know that.

Would this also apply to a garage / mechanic that let a car leave their garage if they knew the tyres were defective? I'm assuming defective also includes tread below the legal limit.