Wheels of justice

My friend Dan runs a small company that distributes parts for farm equipment. Pesticide sprayers, to be exact. He has four trucks, which at any given moment could be days apart in Ontario, delivering a valve or nozzle or computer chip to keep some farmer’s spray rate controller working right.

Danny pays the fuel, insurance, and repair bills, but that’s as close to his trucks as he wants to get. Someone else drives them. Someone else fixes them. He just makes sure they get their inspections on schedule: annuals in January, a basic safety every 60 days, and pre- and post-trip walkarounds each day.

Last month, one of Dan’s trucks was called back to the shop because a mechanic discovered that the wrong lubricant was used during a bearing replacement in March. That’s not good: improperly lubed, bearings can heat up to where the wheel-end will shear right off the axle, sending the wheel assembly flying.

Dan dropped me line because of a story he’d read on our web site about Ontario’s “wheel off” law, which has survived another court challenge and seems to be here to stay. “Would I be screwed because the mechanic messed up?” he wrote. “Tell me about this thing.”

This “thing” is the Supreme Court of Canada’s denial of an application from Transport Robert, a large trucking outfit from the Montreal area, to appeal a wheel-off conviction on grounds that the absolute liability provision of Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act is unconstitutional. In the event of a wheel separation from a commercial vehicle, the law denies a defence of due diligence and automatically affixes guilt. The penalty can be as much as $50,000.

Lawyers for Transport Robert and another carrier, William Cameron Trucking, have told two Ontario courts that the law violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by not allowing a defence of due diligence. It “stigmatizes owners as someone who has exposed innocent motorists or pedestrians to the risk of serious injury or death.” Twice, the courts have supported the constitutionality of absolute liability, saying that a company charged for negligence in regard to a flying wheel incident isn’t burdened with the kind of intense stigma that comes from being charged with a crime. Moreover, they defended the provision as an appropriate action by the government to reduce wheel-off accidents.
So the simple answer to your question, Dan, is “yes.” Even though it wasn’t you who reached for the wrong oil or pounded the wheel seal into place with the biggest hammer in the shop. You may have done everything in your power to make your vehicle safe, but you’re on the hook if you lose a wheel. It’s not reasonable, and it’s not fair. Here’s hoping that if a wheel takes off, it rolls quietly into a cornfield and not headlong into a Corolla.

Unfortunately, tragedy stoked the absolute liability debate last month after a steel pad from a trailer’s landing gear came loose, striking and killing a man driving his car on Hwy. 401. The province’s wheel-off rule doesn’t apply (there were no wheels involved), but it begs a reminder: the fine for operating a dangerous or unsafe vehicle in Ontario is stiff-up to $20,000. Other jurisdictions have similar regulations.

While an investigation is ongoing–the trailer has yet to be found–consider that maybe the problem is not the guy slinging the wrench or driving the truck, or defective landing gear components or a faulty design. At least two places in Ontario source replacement landing gear pads from will-fit parts suppliers overseas. Counterfeit and no-name parts are a vexing issue among name-brand manufacturers, and Canada has become an attractive dumping ground for this stuff now that the dollar is stronger.

Some components-brake valves come to mind-are, at a glance, indistinguishable from the original aftermarket part. All they’re missing is the engineering expertise, the after-sale support, the warranty, or even the government and industry safety stamps to back them up. Y’know. Little stuff.

I don’t know why a piece of metal worked its way loose from the landing gear. Maybe it’s bad luck. Maybe, like the guy working on Danny’s truck, an honest mistake was made during a repair. But sometimes the problem is a conscious decision to use cheap replacement parts when will-fits won’t do. Whose fault is that?


Have your say


This is a moderated forum. Comments will no longer be published unless they are accompanied by a first and last name and a verifiable email address. (Today's Trucking will not publish or share the email address.) Profane language and content deemed to be libelous, racist, or threatening in nature will not be published under any circumstances.

*