STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-1542

)

MASSEY TRUCKING, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Following the provision of notice, a formal hearing was held in the offices of the Division of Administrative Hearings in Tallahassee, Florida. The authority for the conduct of the hearing is set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Charles C. Adams was the Hearing Officer.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire

Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 For Respondent: No Appearance

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The issues concern the intention by Petitioner to levy an $836 fine for the alleged operation of a commercial vehicle on a low-limit bridge when the commercial vehicle exceeded the weight limit for that bridge. See Section 316.545, Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner cited Respondent for the alleged violation set forth in the statement of issues. Respondent requested a formal hearing. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and the hearing was conducted.

Petitioner presented the testimony of Lawrence H. Davis, Robert T. Person, Jr., and Gary R. Crosby. Seven exhibits by Petitioner were admitted.

Respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented at the hearing.

A transcript was ordered and the parties were afforded ten days from the filing of the transcript on June 21, 1991, to file a proposed recommended order.

On July 1, 1991, Petitioner submitted its proposed recommended order. Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order. The suggested fact finding of the Petitioner is commented on in an Appendix to the Recommended Order attached.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On December 17, 1990, a commercial vehicle driven by William Roy Grayson for the carrier Massey Franklin (Massey Trucking) came into Florida from Georgia on US Highway 17. In doing so it crossed the bridge over the St. Marys River. Petitioner has jurisdiction over that bridge. Petitioner in accordance with law had limited the weight that could be placed on that bridge by a commercial vehicle. That weight restriction was 32 tons. The commercial vehicle in question was weighed shortly after entering Florida at an inspection station operated by Petitioner. It weighed 80,720 pounds.

   
   

2. Persons such as Mr. Grayson who operate commercial vehicles coming into Florida across the subject bridge are warned of the weight limit on the bridge by posted signs using symbols from the manual on Uniform Traffic Highway Administration as the national standard in accordance with Title 23 US Code. Those silhouette symbols used to post the weight limit for the bridge show a single unit truck with the weight limit of 27 tons and a combination truck with a weight limit of 32 tons. The truck in question was a combination truck. These warning signs on the weight limit were posted in Georgia at the time in question for the south bound traffic. Respondent's truck was south bound on that date. The first sign in Georgia before you enter Florida states "weight limit restrictions ahead." The second sign provides weight limit symbols showing a combination truck with a limit of 32 tons and notes that the distance

   from that restriction is three miles. The third sign before arriving at Scrubby Bluff Road in Georgia has the weight limit symbol of 32 tons for a combination truck and notes that this is the last exit before being restricted in weight. A fourth sign shows weight limit symbols with 32 tons for a combination truck and an arrow describing the exit from Scrubby Bluff Road to Interstate 95.

   
   

3. The truck in question exceeded the weight limit by 16,720 pounds and was assessed a fine .05 per pound for a total penalty of $836.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

4. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

5. Section 316.555, Florida Statutes, affords the Petitioner the authority to establish weight limits on roads where it deems it appropriate to meet the needs of public safety and convenience. The bridge at the St. Mary's River over which Petitioner has jurisdiction was posted with a 32 ton limit. Respondent having exceeded that limit by 16,720 pounds, Petitioner is empowered to assess a fine in the amount of five cents per pound under the authority set forth in Section 316.545(3)(b), Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law, it

is,

RECOMMENDED:

That a Final Order be entered which imposes a fine in the amount of $836, pursuant to Section 316.545(3)(b), Florida Statutes.

DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 1991.

APPENDIX

The proposed facts by the Petitioner are subordinate to facts found.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458

Franklin Massey Massey Trucking

101 Wind Creek Lane Enterprise, AL 36330

Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which top submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 91-001542

Orders for Case No: 91-001542