Austin v. CommonwealthAustin v. Commonwealth
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Crumlish
Lead Opinion
Opinion by
President Judge Crumlish, Jr.,D.. Wаyne Austin appeals from a Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court order imposing fines for Pennsylvania Vehicle .Code1 (Code) violations. We affirm.
Austin was hauling á bulldozer on a tractor-trailer combination2 in Westmoreland County. The loaded vehicle, weighing 143,450 pounds, exceeded the maximum legal weight limit.3 Although Austin had secured and was carrying special hauling permits issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation4 (Penn-DOT), he did not comply with certain general permit conditions5 contained in the regulations promulgated under the Code. 67 Pa. .Code 51.10(8)6 provided;that a special permit was automatically invalidated by thе violation of any condition specified in the regulations. *437Austin was cited for violating Code sections 49017 (a “non-weight” violation, i.e., not displaying the required placards and red flags, and operating without pilot cars), and 49418 (a “weight” violation, i.e., operating a combination whose weight exceeded the authorized maximum), notwithstanding that the vehicle’s weight was within the 145,000-pound limitation allowed by the special permit. The district justice fined Austin $50.00 plus costs for the “non-weight” violation9 and $20,400.00 plus costs for the “weight” violation.10 The commоn pleas court affirmed, but reduced the “weight” violation fine to $20,250.00.
Austin claims that the provision, automatically invalidating a special permit for non-compliance with the regulatory conditions, is without PennDOT’s statutory authority. Section 4961(a)(2) of the Code11 authorizes PennDOT to allow, by special permit, the operation of a combination carrying a nondivisible load (e.g., a bulldozer) which exceeds the legal maximum weight. Section 4962(a)12 authorizes PennDOT to prescribe conditions of operation” under the permit as it “shall deem necessary to protect the safety of highway users, to promote the efficient movement of traffic or to protect the highways.” Under this аu*438th.ari.ty, PennDOT duly promulgated the automatic invalidation regulation, hence it has the force of law. See Newport Homes, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 17 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 317, 326, 332 A.2d 568, 574 (1975).
Austin also contends that, sincе he posted bond for the special permit,13 any fine imposed for operating the combination in excess of the prеscribed weight is duplicative. He argues that the posted security entitled him to drive the overweight vehicle without fear of sanctiоns. We disagree.
The purpose of the Code’s overweight provisions is to protect the Commonwealth’s highways from damage аnd to insure the safety of those using the highways. Commonwealth v. Smith, 409 Pa. 521, 525, 187 A.2d 267, 270 (1963). The bond was required in the event that the permitted vehicle were to cause damagе. The security’s posting was not, as Austin claims, a release from criminal liability under the Vehicle Code. Austin was prosecuted for violating Code Sections 4901(a) and 4941(a), neither of which requires r.oad damage to be proved, hence it is irrelevant that security was posted. Austin would have been insulated from this liability if he simply had complied with the special permit conditions. A party seeking the prоtection of a special permit must bring himself within the terms of the permit, which Austin had failed to do. Commonwealth v. Curley, 189 Pa. Superior Ct. 506, 509, 151 A.2d 656, 658 (1959),
We also cannot agree with Austin’s clаim that the lower court was without original jurisdiction to decide this case on the basis that an initial administrative review by PennDOT was required.
Affirmed.
Order
The Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court order No. 1270 C Í980, dated December 1, 1980, is affirmed.
Judge Pauladino did not participate in the decision in this case.Notes
75 Pa. c. s. §101.
875 pa. C. S. §4941 (a) prohibits any combination weighing id excess of 73,280 pounds from operating on a highwаy.
Since the incident occurred on March 19, 1980, the regulations then in effect control.
The autоmatic invalidation provision is now found in 67 Pa.. Code §179.10(8).
See footnote 3.
This rule provides that,’ when’ ¿ summary offense under the Vehiclе Code is charged, -criminal procéedings are instituted by a citation’s issuance by a-police officer.
This section providеs that the district justice shall-.have jurisdiction of all summary offenses. . ’
The common pleas court has exclusive jurisdiction of apрeals from final orders of the minor judiciary located within the judicial district. ”
A defendant, convicted in any summary proceeding, may аp^ peal to the common pleas court of the‘-judicial district, in which the conviction occurred. ’ ’
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Blatt :I must respectfully dissent.
I believe that PennDOT еxceeded-its statutory authority here because the effect of its regulations is to impose a fine on the appéllaht fоr an excessive weight violation when he, in actuality, committed a non-weight violation.; PennDOT has been given authority to issue speсial permits for vehicles which exceed-the maximum *440size or the máximum weight specified in the statute.