Chain of Responsibility (CoR) recognises that the driver alone is not (necessarily) solely responsible for breaches of speed, mass, load securing and fatigue. However despite the principle of "Shared Responsibility", the driver necessarily remains at the front-end when it comes to many "on-road" aspects of CoR.

This article will consider when the driver is, and isn't responsible, why this distinction matters and what can be done.

When it's not about the driver

The new CoR imposes a great many obligations on all parties within the CoR.

It is possible to analyse these obligations as "on-road" and "off-road".

Obviously all CoR obligations are "on-road" to the extent that a driver has a primary responsibility not to breach his or her CoR obligations. Despite the principle of Shared Responsibility, drivers are in a direct position of control or influence when it comes to a great many CoR obligations, and so they should be. Drivers should not be passive actors in the CoR. While they can have pressure bought to bear on them to breach or stretch their CoR responsibility, in the first instance we are entitled to expect that they will push back against unreasonable demands that may lead to speed, fatigue or mass breaches, and be sufficiently skilled and trained to ensure that loads are secured properly.

While CoR provides support and back-up for drivers, there will continue to be CoR breaches for which the driver alone is responsible, and CoR is not intended to shift the blame when the driver is truly at fault.

What about the non-drivers?

However the non-driver parties have "off-road" obligations too, which complement and supplement "on-road" obligations.

"Off-road" parties (including directors, and executive officers) must:

  • conduct a risk analysis of their transport activities
  • put in place measures to address these identified risks
  • continue to monitor and audit the risk assessment process.

As we saw from Remondis, a company can have significant liabilities for "off-road" or "systems" breaches even when there hasn't been an accident or casualty.

And this is at the heart of CoR. Just as drivers have a principal responsibility not to take to the road in breach of CoR, "off-road" parties have a principal responsibility to make sure that their systems are CoR compliant.

One area where the off-road and on-road parties intersect is in relation to training and awareness. One of the principal obligations of both on-road and off-road parties is (or should be) to ensure that the CoR message is getting across particularly to drivers and those who interact with drivers directly.

Training

A ship's captain must train for many years before they take command, and bear a considerable regulatory burden. But they also have a "ticket" or qualification which demonstrates their level of experience, training and competency to the world.

It is time to apply the same thinking to drivers. Giving a licence to driver should be seen merely the starting point. Drivers should be formally trained and qualified in all aspects of CoR and safety too. Programs such as TruckSafe provide an excellent example of the sort of thinking that is required.

And when "off-road" parties are considering potential logistics business partners, a training program or compliance with a program like TruckSafe should be a requirement.

This publication does not deal with every important topic or change in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader's specific circumstances. If you have found this publication of interest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advice relevant to your circumstances please contact one of the named individuals listed.