R. Cabon/Cabon's Central Auto Service v. PennDOT, Bureau of Motor Vehicles
147 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 17, 2016Background
- PennDOT notified Cabon’s Central Auto Service of two consecutive one-year suspensions of its Certificate of Appointment and two $2,500 fines for (1) issuing inspection certificates without performing required OBD tests and (2) fraudulent recordkeeping based on a PennDOT/Parsons monthly printout showing six VIN mismatches.
- The printout compared VINs technicians entered/scanned from registration cards with VINs the OBD analyzer recorded; six entries for station no. 1449 showed mismatches tied to two technician IDs.
- PennDOT’s sole live witness, Quality Assurance Officer Aaron Dacko (Parsons subcontractor), authenticated the printout and testified the mismatches indicated stickers were issued for vehicles not actually tested.
- Cabon’s technician, Dan Kardell, and owner Robert Cabon testified (Kardell denied improper connections); Kardell offered an alternative explanation that intermittent analyzer/computer errors could leave a prior VIN in the analyzer, causing apparent mismatches.
- The trial court credited PennDOT’s evidence and Dacko’s testimony, discredited Kardell’s theory as unproven, and dismissed Cabon’s appeal; the Commonwealth Court affirmed, applying strict liability for station owners and holding fraudulent recordkeeping does not require proof of intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suspension/fines were supported by substantial evidence | Cabon: printout mismatches can be explained by analyzer/connection errors; lack of direct evidence any technician intentionally connected wrong vehicle; owner was incapacitated and not personally involved | PennDOT: printout and Dacko’s testimony establish that six stickers were issued without proper OBD tests and records were false | Held: Substantial evidence supports suspension/fines; trial court credited PennDOT and printout over Cabon’s speculative error theory |
| Whether fraudulent recordkeeping requires proof of intent | Cabon: fraud requires intent; absent proof of intent, charges improper | PennDOT: regulation defines fraudulent recordkeeping by false entries, not intent | Held: Fraudulent recordkeeping, as defined by 67 Pa. Code §177.601, does not require proof of intent; false records suffice |
| Whether owner’s lack of personal involvement defeats liability | Cabon: owner recovering from surgery, not personally involved; should not be strictly liable | PennDOT: owner is strictly liable for employees’ acts within scope of employment under statute/regulation | Held: Station owner strictly liable for employees’ acts within scope of employment; owner’s lack of personal involvement does not absolve liability |
| Whether PennDOT failed to follow remedial procedures (points system / opportunity to correct records) | Cabon: statute allows consideration of inspection volume and opportunity to correct records; PennDOT should have considered points in lieu of suspension | PennDOT: trial record does not show issue was raised below; consideration of points is discretionary and was waived if not raised | Held: Issue waived because not raised in administrative appeal or at hearing; Section 4724(c) discretion does not mandate relief here |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarthy v. Dep’t of Transp., 7 A.3d 346 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (strict liability of station owners for employees’ acts and consideration of points in lieu of suspension)
- Firestone Tire & Serv. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Transp., 871 A.2d 863 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (credibility determinations rest with the factfinder)
- Snyder v. Dep’t of Transp., 970 A.2d 523 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (distinguishing inadvertent, non-fraudulent errors from furnishing certificates without inspection or fraudulent recordkeeping)
- Verna, 351 A.2d 694 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (trial court’s de novo role in inspection-certificate appeals)
- Stahl, 460 A.2d 1223 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (scope-of-employment analysis for station liability)