Summary
holding that ignorance of the law is no defense.
Summary of this case from Linde Enterprises v. Prevail. Wage App. Bd.Opinion
May 11, 1983.
Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board — Violation of liquor license — Scope of appellate review — Modification of penalty — Ignorance of legal requirements.
1. A court reviewing an order of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board cannot modify a fine imposed without taking additional evidence and making material changes in factual findings. [254-5]
2. Violations of provisions of statutes or regulations by the holder of a liquor license cannot be excused on the ground that the licensee was a novice ignorant of the law. [255]
Submitted on briefs April 4, 1983, to Judges BLATT, MacPHAIL and DOYLE, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 104 C.D. 1982, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. 302 Chelten, Inc., No. 8109-2480, Misc. Liquor Docket.
Fine imposed by Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Licensee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Fine modified. BRAXTON, J. Board appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Original fine reinstated.
Gary F. Divito, Assistant Counsel, with him J. Leonard Langan, Chief Counsel, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) appeals here an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which reduced a fine imposed by the Board upon 302 Chelten, Inc. (licensee).
The facts are undisputed. The Board, after a hearing on the matter, imposed a fine of $200 upon the licensee for certain violations. The licensee appealed to the common pleas court, which without taking additional evidence, reduced the fine to $100 noting that the licensee is a novice in the restaurant business, had no previous violations, and was unaware that these activities were violations. The trial judge also concluded that the offenses were "technical errors rather than flagrant disregard of the Pennsylvania Liquor Regulations" and that the licensee has since taken all steps necessary to comply with the regulations.
These violations included three instances of giving away liquor as a prize, one instance of furnishing liquor for off-premises consumption and two instances of permitting dancing without the required amusement permit from the Board.
Our scope of review includes, of course, a determination as to whether or not the trial court committed an error of law. Diana Appeal, 31 Pa. Commw. 363, 375 A.2d 1386 (1977).
The Board argues here, and we agree, that the trial court overstepped its scope of review by reducing the fine imposed. The law is clear that where the trial court does not take additional evidence, and therefore cannot make any material changes in the facts, it is error for the trial court to modify the fine. Patty's Den, Inc. Liquor License Case, 32 Pa. Commw. 382, 379 A.2d 659 (1977).
We also note, in passing, that even if the trial court had the power to reduce the fine, the grounds upon which it attempted to do so here were in error. It is well-settled that ignorance of the law's requirements will not excuse violations. Commonwealth v. Koczwara, 188 Pa. Super. 153, 146 A.2d 306 (1958); Allegheny Beverage Company, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 67 Pa. Commw. 487, 447 A.2d 725 (1982).
We will reverse the trial court's order and reinstate the penalty imposed by the Board.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of May, 1983, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in the above-captioned matter is hereby reversed, and the $200 penalty imposed by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board is hereby reinstated.