Dear Editor,
I don’t know whether I am perplexed, baffled or confused, over the inaction of those concerned with the death of two persons and the injury of others as a consequence of a transformer falling off a moving vehicle and hitting a minibus. On the contrary, I am certain that we are not proactive in preventing such senseless and ‘heart-rending’ events, at least not unless they reach crisis levels.
Either we are not observant enough and lack the foreseeability to detect possible dangers in the making, or we are thoughtless, uncaring and unmindful of the well-being of Jane and John Public. This proposition rests on the fact that long before the ‘transformer accident’ we had seen lorries and even animal drawn carts precariously loaded with scrap metal travelling at breakneck speed (in the case of the lorries) along our highways.
Let us pray that a piece of scrap metal does not fall from one of those vehicles and into the path of another vehicle resulting in injury or death before somebody arises from their slumber and insists that such cargo be properly secured while the vehicle is in motion.
I would not contemplate who is right or who is wrong in the transformer accident, but having regard to Lord Atkins famous neighbour principle as laid down in the case of Donoghue V. Stephenson, somebody was negligent. Somebody owed the victims a duty of care. There was a breach of that duty and the victims were affected by the breach.
Who is wrong and who is right seems to be a mystery and while the concerned parties search for answers I would urge them to remember that the victims who suffered fatally were somebody’s father, husband, brother and son. That victim could have been any one of us.
In fact I would suggest to all drivers transporting people and or items whether they are transformers, dry coconuts or scrap metal, that they owe all their neighbours a duty of care, and that they should take care not to breach that duty deliberately or negligently.
However, the question which is bound to arise is this.
Who are their neighbours? The answer lies in the judgment of Lord Atkins in the Donoghue case mentioned above.
Yours faithfully,
Francis Carryl
