A farmer has admitted failing to properly maintain a quad bike, which was involved in a fatal collision.
Plymouth Crown Court heard that Philip Coaker, who owned Runnage Farm in Dartmoor, was aware that the rear brakes on the farm’s quad bike were broken. Coaker contacted the bike’s manufacturer to order a new part to fix the fault, but it was out of stock and needed to be imported from overseas. He then personally tested the bike and deemed it safe to use with caution.
On 7 June 2007, three weeks after the fault had been identified, farm apprentice Phillip Nyhan was driving the bike along a single-track road to access a field, when he was involved in a head-on collision with a car. The 17-year-old wasn’t wearing a helmet and died at the scene from serious head injuries.
The court was told the defects with the quad bike had no direct bearing on the incident. However, HSE inspector Simon Jones explained that the bike shouldn’t have been used until the brakes were fixed.
“It’s essential that quad bikes are properly maintained. If a quad is not in full working order it should not be used”, said inspector Jones. “In this case, Mr Coaker should have taken the vehicle out of use until the back brake was fully repaired.
“Sadly, although Phillip Nyhan had access to a helmet that he was told to wear, he was not wearing one when the accident happened. This tragic case also highlights the need for farm workers to always wear a helmet when riding a quad bike.”
Phillip Coaker appeared in court on 10 January and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.5 of PUWER 1998. He was fined £250 and ordered to pay £2000 in costs.
In mitigation, Coaker said he had no previous convictions and entered an early guilty plea. He told the court he had made efforts to get the bike fixed prior to the incident. The bike was subsequently written off due to the damage it received in the collision.
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.
Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!
Why this prosecution? HSE making a point or an inspector wanting a name.?. The brakes had “no direct bearing”. Quads can be riden with only front brakes, but he failed to wear the helmet he was instructed to use. Unfortunately it appears the main failing is trusting a youth! Hence the small fine I feel. A good use of tax payers money? Where should the HSE be targetting their resources? It’s the cowboy SME’s and their (sometimes) illegal workers, but then the race card may be played!!
Yet another example of the court case occurring way too long (6 and a half years) after the incident. Mr Coaker said he entered an early guilty plea. Just as well or the Crown Court hearing may have lapsed into the next millenium! Or am I just cynical?