440 N.E.2d 1244 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1982
The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, defendant-appellant, appeals the trial court order finding it in violation of R.C.
"2. If the defendant violated Ohio Rev. Code §
"No person shall fail to provide the true odometer disclosures required by section
Incorporated by reference is the R.C.
"The registrar shall prescribe an affidavit in which the transferor shall swear to or affirm the true selling price and odometer reading of the motor vehicle. * * *."
R.C.
"(A) Any person who violates any requirement imposed by sections
"(1) Three times the amount of actual damages sustained or fifteen hundred dollars, whichever is greater; and
"(2) In the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by the court."
The legislature may enact statutes which prohibit certain behavior without requiring an element of knowledge or intent. For example, evidence of intent to deceive is not required in actions for an unfair or deceptive consumer sales practice under R.C.
R.C.
R.C.
In Ohio, intent is not required where the accused had the means of knowledge relating to the facts of the violation, or, where, because of substantial and significant public interest involved, the accused had a duty to ascertain the facts of the violation.State v. Williams (1952),
Finally, we cannot say that the civil penalties imposed by R.C.
"* * * Many violations of such regulations result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize. While such offenses do not threaten the security of the state in the manner of treason, they may be regarded as offenses against its authority, for their occurrence impairs the efficiency of controls deemed essential to the social order as presently constituted. In this respect, whatever the intent of the violator, the injury is the same, and the consequences are injurious or not according to fortuity. Hence, legislation applicable to such offenses, as a matter of policy, does not specify intent as a necessary element. The accused, if he does not will the violation, usually is in a position to prevent it with no more care than society might reasonably expect and no more exertion than it might reasonably exact from one who assumed his responsibilities. * * *"
Based on this rationale, the liabilities imposed by R.C.
Appellant's assignments of error are overruled. The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
VICTOR and QUILLIN, JJ., concur. *139