65 Pa. Commw. 434 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1982
Lead Opinion
Opinion by
D.. Wayne Austin appeals from a Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court order imposing fines for Pennsylvania Vehicle .Code
Austin was hauling á bulldozer on a tractor-trailer combination
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 Code
Austin also contends that, since he posted bond for the special permit,
The purpose of the Code’s overweight provisions is to protect the Commonwealth’s highways from damage and 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 damage. 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 protection 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 claim that the lower court was without original jurisdiction to decide this case on the basis that an initial administrative review by PennDOT was required. 67 Pa. Code §1515
Affirmed.
Order
The Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court order No. 1270 C Í980, dated December 1, 1980, is affirmed.
75 Pa. c. s. §101.
75 Pa. C. S. §102 défines “combination” as “[t]wo or more vehicles physically interconnected in tandem.”
875 pa. C. S. §4941 (a) prohibits any combination weighing id excess of 73,280 pounds from operating on a highway.
75 Pa. C. S. §4961 (a) (1) empowers PennDOT to authorize, by special permit, the operation of a combination which exceeds the statutory maximum weight.
Since the incident occurred on March 19, 1980, the regulations then in effect control. 67 Pa. Code §51.10 established the general conditions under which special permits were issued. Condition '(13) required pilot cars to lead and follow the permitted‘vehicle; condition (15) required the display of “oversize load” signs; and condition (16) required red warning flags. The current regulations are fouhd in 67 J?a. Code §179.10.
The automatic invalidation provision is now found in 67 Pa.. Code §179.10(8).
75 Pa. C. S. §4901 (a) prohibits the operation upon a highway of a vehicle that is not equipped as required by the Code or the regulations promulgated thereunder.
See footnote 3.
75 Pa. C. S. §4907 imposes a fine of not less than $50.00 nor more than $100.00 for violating any provision of Vehicle Code Chapter 49 (entitled “Size, Weight and Load”).
75 Pa. C. S. §4945(a) imposed upon a person operating an overweight vehicle a $75.00 base fine plus $75.00 for each 500 pounds, or part thereof, in. excess of 3,000 pounds, over the maximum gross weight allowed. This section further provided that, if the combination’s gross weight exceeded 73,280 pounds, the fine was double the amount of other weight violations.
75 Pa. C. S. §4961 (a) (2).
75 Pa. C. S. §4962(a). (Emphasis supplied.)
75 Pa. C. S. §4962(a) provides that PennDOT, when issuing a special permit, may require such “security as [it deems] necessary to compensate any damage to any highway or structure or appurtenance.'’
This rule provides that,' when' ¿ summary offense under the Vehicle Code is charged, -criminal procéedings are instituted by a citation’s issuance by a-police officer.
This section provides that the district justice shall-.have jurisdiction of all summary offenses. . ’
The common pleas court has exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from final orders of the minor judiciary located within the judicial district. "
A defendant, convicted in any summary proceeding, may ap^ peal to the common pleas court of the'-judicial district, in which the conviction occurred. ' '
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
I must respectfully dissent.
I believe that PennDOT exceeded-its statutory authority here because the effect of its regulations is to impose a fine on the appéllaht for an excessive weight violation when he, in actuality, committed a non-weight violation.; PennDOT has been given authority to issue special permits for vehicles which exceed-the maximum