Family of cyclist killed by Sainsbury's lorry driver call for “meaningful recompense”

It's not just money though, it's a expectation of a company taking some resposibility for the actions of their employee, in a company vehicle, performing business for that company.

If poor Stephen had been killed in a Sainsbury's supermarket then there would have been something from them.  But because it's driving on the nations roads which we all have to use, somehow it OK for corporate to drop all culpability. 

What culpability, exactly?  On the assumption that the lorry was roadworthy, taxed and insured, and driven within HGV driving regulations by someone who was properly trained and licensed to do so, what measures over and above obeying the law do you expect the supermarket to take?!? Should they not use lorries to deliver stock?  Should they not deliver stock on a just in time basis?  Should they not deliver stock outwith store opening hours?   

Cassar happened to be at work at the time - he could just as easily not have been, and Mr Gibbons no less dead than had he been hit by a car rather than a lorry.  And while Cassar was working for Sainsbury's, are Sainsbury's doing anything significantly different to the vast majority of any other businesses in the UK, Europe and most of the western world?  I think not. Furthermore, given the business model of the likes of Amazon, Yodel etc and their use of zero hours contracts and self-employed couriers, I'd suggest Sainsbury's are probably one of the better outfits in this area. 

Your outrage is well-meaning, but ignorant.  

Tim, it wasn't being driven within HGV driving regulations, you don't go to sent to prison 3 years for driving within HGV driving regulations.

KIlling innocent cylists is not driving within HGV driving regulations, and is something you might fail your HGV driving test for.

It's something you should fail any test for, and the person responsible has been rightly sent to prison.  

But answer the question - what is the responsibility of Sainsbury's in all of this?  The driver was probably wearing trousers at the time as well as working for Sainsbury's - what of the culpability of trouser manufacturers in this senseless killing?!?

Sainsbury's are required to undertake full risk assessments where their activities may affect the health and safety of their employees, or the public at large. As the outcome of LGV collisions is likely to be lifechanging or fatal, and the likelihood of occurence is high due to the volume of their operation, they would need to mitigate the risk, and to be able to demonstrate how they did this. Training and continuing evaluation can be very effective.

I work for a company with a similar road use profile, and some years ago I was on the fleet driver training team. We found that 80% of our collisions involved 10% of our drivers. Once that knowledge came to light, we were obliged (we viewed it as an ethical obligation) to act on it.

Does Sainsbury's

• Continually assess drivers? 
• give them regular training?
• investigate incidents - if so how aggressively?
• have a Vulnerable Road User policy? 
• pressure drivers to run on time?
• pay overtime for late shifts?
• Run a job and knock policy?

All of the above will have a direct effect on road safety, and are completely rectifiable for a company with Sainsbury's resources. There are plenty of other tings that Sainsbury's does/can do that will have an effect, the list is not exhaustive.

So damn right, companies do have an elevated responsibility when it comes to road safety. They select the drivers, train them and provide the culture in which they work, an then sit them in a killing machine and let them loose. And we can only hope that they have done their job properly.

Captain Zhap wrote:

So damn right, companies do have an elevated responsibility when it comes to road safety. They select the drivers, train them and provide the culture in which they work, an then sit them in a killing machine and let them loose. And we can only hope that they have done their job properly.

And the fact that the individual driver has been jailed and the corporate not suggests they have, much as others wish that were not the case.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability_in_English_law

Employers have strict liability for the wrongdoings of their employees. It does not require fault or criminal intent by the employer.

On the contrary, the trial was of the driver for the events on the day. It is unlikely that he would have been able to (successfully) use negligence by his employer as mitigation, except in highly unusual circumstances.

The culpability of the employer lies in their policy and culture, and whether they have paid adequate attention to their health and safety obligations. That is yet to be tried. If it ever is, it is equally unlikely that the operator would be able to use incompetence of the individual as mitigation, or for that matter the verdict in this case (eg we shouldn't be on trial as the driver is already doing time), as the charge to be answered by a corporation would be entirely different and separate to that of the individual. I would not imagine that defence would go down well with many sitting judges in any case.

Sainsbury's has an obligation to all of us to ensure that their drivers do not pose a significant risk on the road to the public - y'know, not to kill you and me. The fact that this particular driver has gone down so severely actually suggests that there is a chance this might not be the case here. However, that can only be ascertained by a full investigation, if it ever happens.

Sainsbury's responsibility is simply that the death was caused by one of their employees carrying out his duties. Vicarious liability doesn't require any wrongdoing on Sainsbury's part, it's a principle of law. The House of Lords (as it was) explained it thus:

"all forms of economic activity carry a risk of harm to others, and fairness requires that those responsible for such activities should be liable to persons suffering loss from wrongs committed in the conduct of the enterprise. This is 'fair', because it means injured persons can look for recompense to a source better placed financially than individual wrongdoing employees." 

It is a tough one in law though. As you mentioned earlier, if it has happened in a store, they own that and legally should provide a safe enviroment within it which is why they will normally compensense for slipping on wet floors or fallen food. However they provided a road worthy vehicle (arguments on lorries ultimates designs aside) and never said to the driver to drive and use mobile, drive tired or drive without looking to get to the supermarket on time.

If they made a timetable impossible to complete without general bad driving, then they could be culpable but as there is no evidence of anything they actually did corporately to make the driver kill the cyclist, then apart from normal claims against the insurance what else is there?

But as I said, it's not just about money, the insurance should cover some of that, after probably far too many legal wrangles, it's about being a good company, a good member of society, a good supermarket and saying sorry.  And meaning it.  Sorry that it was our worker, driving our vehicle doing our deliveries that took your loved one from you in a violent and terrible and shocking manner.  And doing it quickly.

And perhaps not putting this on the back of your lorries

If you're negligent and harm someone doing something in the course of your employment then you're employer is vicariously liable (ie responsible) for you. But that's in the context of a civil claim - for compensation purposes in other words.

The story here is a bit unclear - it seems that the family is saying Sainsbury's weren't involved in criminal case against the driver. But I don't particularly see why they would be. 

I doubt very much Sainsbury's are denying responsibility altogether, but they might have said that the criminal case is nothing to do with them..

Depends on the amount of the claim. Sainsbury's is the  potential defendant here (assuming the driver was their employee and at work at the time) and will have insurance. But Sainsbury's likely have a very high excess meaning that they will deal with most minor claims (trips and slips) themselves. The bigger ones will trigger the insurance cover and then the insurer takes over claims-handling, but Sainsbury's remains the party that the claim is against.

There are lots of ways of financing legal claims these days (you may have legal expenses as part of your credit card deal for example). Plus, the UK is not like the US  - by and large the lawyers don't take a share of the damages. Instead the legal costs are paid by the losing party on top of the damages.

Very sad case here and I wish them well. Sounds like they could do with some legal advice before the negotiate further with Sainsbury's.

Worth speaking to a decent Personal Injury firm if you are injured by someone and they should be able to come up with a funding mechanism. But bear in mind that bumps, scrapes, broken bones etc don't actually pay out that much. The big money only kicks in when you've been permanently disabled and require care or are self-employed and have been prevented from working for a period of time.

Given the circumstances, Sainsbury's would have been, at a legal level at least, extremely foolish to have contacted the family of the deceased during an ongoing Police investigation and the subsequent prosecution. 

On a moral level, what are the family expecting, in addition presumably to any insurance settlement, from Sainsbury's as recompense for a Life? A year's supply of free bog roll, 50% off electrical goods, 1000 Nectar points? A sincere expression of sympathy and efforts to expedite a full and fair insurance settlement to the family of the deceased is the only decent course of action.