Opinion
November 13, 1968.
December 12, 1968.
Motor Vehicles — Licenses — Suspension — Unlawful speed — Economic hardship to operator — Circumstances — Responsibility for alleged improper functioning of speedometer — Tractor-trailer owned by employer of operator.
1. Lucchetti Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 213 Pa. Super. 397, Held controlling.
2. A speeding offense by the operator of a tractor-trailer owned by his employer may not be excused on the ground that the operator was not responsible for the alleged improper functioning of the speedometer.
3. In this case, in which it appeared that the operator was apprehended for driving his motor vehicle at the rate of 64 miles per hour in a 50 mile-per-hour speed zone, and paid a fine to a justice of the peace; that, after hearing, the operator's license was suspended by the Secretary of Revenue; that the operator's previous record reflected three prior operating violations, for which the secretary had sent a warning letter to him without imposing any suspension; that the operator testified that, at the particular time in question, he had been watching the speedometer and tachometer, and these reflected his rate of speed at 52 miles per hour; that the control of the mechanical features of his truck was in the hands of his employer, that he had reported to his employer the problems connected with the speedometer and tachometer, and had received assurances that the equipment was functioning properly; and that the retention of his operating privileges was essential for his earning a living; it was Held that the order of the court below restoring the operator's privileges should be reversed and the order of the secretary reinstated.
Argued November 13, 1968.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, and HANNUM, JJ.
Appeal, No. 210, April T., 1968, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, July T., 1967, No. 30, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Edward Sladky. Order reversed.
Appeal by licensee from decision of Secretary of Revenue suspending motor vehicle operating privileges. Before WEISS, P.J.
Order entered sustaining appeal and directing that operating privileges be reinstated. Commonwealth appealed.
Elmer T. Bolla, Deputy Attorney General, with him William C. Sennett, Attorney General, for Commonwealth, appellant.
No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.
This appeal is ruled by our opinion filed this day in Lucchetti Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 213 Pa. Super. 397, 249 A.2d 783. The factual situation and reasoning of the hearing judge appear in the following excerpt from the opinion below:
"On April 26, 1966, at about 5:50 o'clock A.M., Trooper Stephen Laposki, of the Pennsylvania State Police, was operating properly tested radar timing equipment on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and, pursuant to his duties, timed the speed of the appellant as operating a motor vehicle at the rate of 64 miles per hour in a 50 mile per hour speed zone. An Information was filed before a Justice of the Peace whereupon the appellant had paid the fine and costs. Appellant's previous operating record reflects three prior operating violations for which the Secretary had sent a warning letter to appellant without imposing any suspension.
"The appellant testified in his own behalf. He is employed by Cooper-Jarrett, a trucking firm, and drives tractor-trailers between Westmoreland County and New Jersey in the course of his employment. He is married, has four children, and is the sole support of himself and his family. He testified that he operates a motor vehicle approximately 110,000 miles a year and that retention of his operating privileges is essential for his earning a living. As to the particular time in question, he testified that he had been warned by drivers approaching in the opposite direction, by the flashing of lights, of the presence of police timing speed by radar, and he had been watching his speedometer and tachometer at the time in question. He testified that these reflected his rate of speed at 52 miles per hour. He stated that the control of the mechanical features of his trucks is in the hands of his employer, that he had reported to his employer the problems connected with the speedometer and tachometer, and he had received assurances that the equipment was functioning properly.
"This is a case of speed and speed alone, without any attendant aggravating circumstances. There is no accident connected with the instant operating violation. In addition, it appears that appellant is not in personal control of the equipment and is an operator of one tractor-trailer of a fleet. Had this been a case where he had been operating his personal vehicle, it would seem proper for responsibility to be affixed to him for the proper functioning of his speedometer. Where, as here, the speedometer is in control of his employer and he has reported mechanical problems connected with his vehicle to his employer, and has received assurances prior to operating his vehicle that the vehicle is in proper condition, responsibility for the proper functioning of the speedometer should not be borne by him, especially where his livelihood is at stake".
This is appellant's fourth speeding violation. We are not in accord with the conclusion of the court below that an offense by the operator of a tractor-trailer may be excused on the ground that he was not responsible for the alleged improper functioning of the speedometer.
The order of the court below is reversed, and the order of the Secretary of Revenue is reinstated.