‘Principal must be responsible for supplying accurate info’
Terry Hutson
THE HARBOUR Carriers Association (HCA) has hit back at a report in FTW (February 7, 2003)* quoting Shepstone & Wylie attorney Quintus van der Merwe saying the report in FTW was scant and based on hearsay and the shipping line was unfairly criticised.
Not so, says Kevin Martin of the HCA. Everyone should get behind the authorities on this one instead of splitting hairs.
“Van der Merwe’s statement begs the question as to who, in his opinion, the container hauliers should be blaming and looking to for reimbursement.”
He says the container remains a sealed box with content and method of loading completely unknown to the road haulier, whereas the shipping line has access to the manifest. But given the correct mass on an averagely loaded container, a professional transporter can in fact choose the correct equipment to transport legally, without endangering his personnel, equipment, public structures or the public.
“The principal - be it the shipper or shipping line or appointed agent - that gives the instruction to the haulier has to be the responsible party as to the accuracy of the information supplied.”
Martin says the law for hazardous transportation recognises that all parties in the logistical chain, i.e. consignor/consignee are equally responsible.
“Draft legislation to expand this responsibility to all other forms of transport has already been prepared, but as the law stands only the driver and vehicle operator can be charged for overloading offences. The authorities’ standpoint is that they are not concerned with the who, when, why or if of any gross overload. Public structures were damaged and public lives placed at risk, and it was up to the haulier to pass on whatever penalty he incurred to his principal and they in turn to their principals if applicable, as per the advice given by Tony Norton of Garlicke & Bousfield. This applies until such time as the proposed legislation is passed into law.”
Nor was the FTW report scant or based on hearsay. “Section 70 of the NRTA reads: ‘Where in any prosecution for an alleged contravention of any provision of this Act, evidence to prove such contravention is tendered of any mass as ascertained by means of a mass-measuring bridge or other mass-measuring instrument such mass shall be deemed to be correct in the absence of evidence to the contrary.’
“The information supplied from these documents, which are deemed by the above law to be accurate unless proven in court to the contrary, were used in the FTW article and all relevant points were covered, which means that the onus is on the accused not the state to prove differently.
“Van der Merwe says that the shipping line has been unfairly criticised, whereas the article reads: ‘No one shipping line or client is to blame, as it is widespread throughout the industry.’
“It is for this reason and this reason only that we stand 100% behind what the authorities are trying to achieve. We have no axe
to grind with the particular parties involved in this incident, as it really is a case
of ‘there but for the grace
of GodÉ’”
* The article examined the question of liability after Durban traffic officials nailed a haulier for a 29 tonne overload at the Bayhead Weighbridge. The information provided by the shipping line to the haulier did not correspond with the actual weight of the containers.
