Opinion
Argued November 17, 1980
December 17, 1980.
Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. § 4724(a) — Inspection station — Certificate of appointment — Suspension — Uniform Partnership Act, 59 Pa. C. S. § 325 — Notice.
1. Under the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. § 4724(a), an inspection station's certificate of appointment will be suspended if any mechanic employed at the station does not adhere to the requirements for performing inspections. [376]
2. Under the Uniform Partnership Act, 59 Pa. C. S. § 325, a partnership is responsible for any wrongful acts of any partner done in the course of the partnership business; where one partner in an inspection station is found to have made an improper inspection, the station's certificate of appointment is subject to suspension. [376]
3. A notice scheduling a hearing that is addressed to a partnership as well as a partner and that is mailed to the partnership's place of business is sufficient notice to the partnership. [376-7]
Argued November 17, 1980, before President Judge CRUMLISH and Judges ROGERS and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 545 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Harry Hagen and Robert Hagen, trading and doing business as Harry Bob's Auto Service, No. 1978-4933.
Certificate of appointment as inspection station suspended by the Department of Transportation. Appointee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County. Appeal sustained. ABOOD, J. Commonwealth appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Reversed in part; suspension reinstated.
Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Attorney General, with him Ward T. Williams, Chief Counsel, Transportation, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for appellant.
No appearance for appellees.
Harry and Robert Hagen, co-partners, trading as Harry Bob's Auto Service, operated an official state inspection station. Each also held a state inspection mechanic's license. Harry Hagen inspected an automobile owned by James Mayberry. A Pennsylvania State Trooper was called to a K-Mart Department Store garage to examine Mr. Mayberry's automobile. The Trooper concluded that the vehicle should not have been passed for inspection. Questioned, Harry Hagen professed no recollection of the Mayberry automobile but conceded that his records showed he had passed it for inspection.
A Departmental hearing was held at which Harry Hagen presented evidence. In accordance with Sections 4724(a) and 4726 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. §§ 4724(a), 4726, two suspension notices were served at Harry Bob's Auto Service. Both had Harry Hagen's name at the top with the business name, Harry Bob's Auto Service, immediately beneath. By one of the notices Harry Hagen's certification as an inspection mechanic was suspended for three months and by the other the inspection station's certificate of appointment was suspended for three months.
Harry Hagen appealed from the action of the Department suspending his, Harry Hagen's, mechanic's license and Harry and Robert Hagen appealed the Department's suspension of the partnership's certificate of appointment of Harry Bob's Auto Service to inspect, to the Common Pleas Court of Cambria County which granted them a supersedeas.
After hearing the cases de novo, the court below dismissed Harry Hagen's appeal as to his mechanic's license and no appeal has been taken from that decision. The court sustained the partnership's appeal from the suspension of Harry Bob's Auto Service's certificate of appointment. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety (Bureau) appealed from this part of the lower court's decision.
The lower court sustained the partnership's appeal, as we understand the opinion, either because it believed that the effect of the suspension of the station's certificate of appointment was to suspend Robert Hagen's mechanic's license or because Robert Hagen was not given adequate notice of the suspension of the partnership's certificate of appointment. Since Robert Hagen's mechanic's license was never in question and the notice given the partnership was proper, we reverse the order sustaining the partnership's appeal from the suspension.
Under the Vehicle Code a station's certificate of appointment will be suspended if any mechanic employed at the station does not adhere to the requirements for performing inspections. Section 4724(a), Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Searer, 50 Pa. Commw. 468, 413 A.2d 1157 (1980). Further, the Uniform Partnership Act, 59 Pa. C. S. § 325 provides that the partnership is responsible for any wrongful acts of any partner done in the course of the partnership business. Consequently, because Harry Hagen was found to have made an improper inspection the station's certificate of appointment was subject to suspension.
As for the question of notice, the letter in the record from the Bureau scheduling the departmental hearing was addressed to the partnership, Harry Bob's Auto Service, as well as Hagen, and it was mailed to the partnership's place of business. This was clearly sufficient notice to the partnership.
Accordingly, we enter the following:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of December, 1980, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County dated February 22, 1979 insofar as it sets aside the suspension of Harry Bob's Auto Service's certificate of appointment as an official inspection station is reversed and said suspension is ordered reinstated.