-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Sign up with GoogleTaking a trailer with on holiday
- Thread starter upup
- Start date
FiestaST
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2009
- Messages
- 119,765
Trailer owners vs renters: Supreme Court decides who’s liable for fines
The Supreme Court of Appeal found itself having to answer the question of whether the National Road Traffic Act, in terms notices and fines for traffic violations, also relates to the owners of trailers.
Section 73 (1) of the National Road Traffic Act provides that where, in any prosecution relating to the driving of a vehicle on a public road, it is necessary to prove who was the driver of such vehicle, it shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that such a vehicle was driven by the owner thereof.
Section 73 (2) in turn, provides that whenever a vehicle is parked in contravention of the traffic rules, it shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that such vehicle was parked by the owner thereof.
But the court was confronted with the question as to whether the act included in its definition of vehicle also trailers.
The issue first came to the fore when companies which rented out trailers to customers across the country became fed-up as they received tickets for parking and traffic offences due to customers who broke the traffic laws.
They said they were held accountable, although it was the drivers of the vehicles which towed the trailers, which had committed these offences, as trailers could not drive themselves.
The Supreme Court of Appeal found itself having to answer the question of whether the National Road Traffic Act, in terms notices and fines for traffic violations, also relates to the owners of trailers.
Section 73 (1) of the National Road Traffic Act provides that where, in any prosecution relating to the driving of a vehicle on a public road, it is necessary to prove who was the driver of such vehicle, it shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that such a vehicle was driven by the owner thereof.
Section 73 (2) in turn, provides that whenever a vehicle is parked in contravention of the traffic rules, it shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that such vehicle was parked by the owner thereof.
But the court was confronted with the question as to whether the act included in its definition of vehicle also trailers.
The issue first came to the fore when companies which rented out trailers to customers across the country became fed-up as they received tickets for parking and traffic offences due to customers who broke the traffic laws.
They said they were held accountable, although it was the drivers of the vehicles which towed the trailers, which had committed these offences, as trailers could not drive themselves.
azbob
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 36,328
I did, and my car broke down, and my trailer is still at the sea. I came back with a rental.
azbob
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 36,328
Eish we told you not to take the trailer.
Willie Trombone
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 60,038
