The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Richard Lindley, committed the offenses alleged in a four-count Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on March 20, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the licensure of individuals who wish to engage in contracting in the State of Florida; and the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals who have been so licensed. See Chs. 455 and 489, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Richard Lindley, is and has been at all times material hereto a certified building contractor in Florida, having been issued license number CB C060555. Mr. Lindley is also a Certified Roofing Contractor, having been issued license number CC C1326286. Both licenses were issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board). At all times material, Mr. Lindley was the primary qualifying agent for HCL, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “HCL”). HCL has a certificate of authority, QB number 20599. On or about June 8, 2005, Mr. Lindley, doing business as HCL, entered into a written contract (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract”) with Myra Love to re-roof her residence located at 765 Windermere Way, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”). Pursuant to the Contract, Ms. Love agreed to pay HCL a total of $8,125.00, as follows: $1,625.00 upon signing the Contract; $2,843.75 upon “roof dri in”; $2,843.75 upon “roof load”; and $812.50 upon “final inspection.” Consistent with the Contract, Ms. Love paid HCL $1,625.00 by check dated June 8, 2005, upon entering into the Contract. On June 9, 2005, Mr. Lindley applied for a building permit for the work to be performed pursuant to the Contract. The permit was issued, but expired for lack of final inspection. Ms. Love next paid HCL $2,843.75 by check dated October 20, 2005, upon being informed that the roof had been dried in. Despite having paid for the dry in of the roof, it continued to leak. After making the second payment to HCL in October 2005, no work was performed pursuant to the Contract and all efforts by Ms. Love to contact Mr. Lindley failed. On April 24, 2006, Ms. Love wrote to Mr. Lindley complaining about the condition of her roof and his lack of response to her telephone calls to him. This letter was delivered by certified mail, return receipt. Mr. Lindley did not respond to Ms. Love’s April 24, 2006, letter. No work was performed by Mr. Lindley through October 2006 on the Subject Property, at least a year after work on the Subject Property stopped. Therefore, Ms. Love sent a letter dated October 31, 2006, by certified mail, return receipt, to Mr. Lindley. Ms. Love stated in the letter that “since you abandoned the contract on 6/8/05, and failed to show up on the job, I consider the contract null and void because of your nonperformance. You and your employees are hereby notified to stay off my property.” On November 4, 2006, after informing Mr. Lindley that she considered the Contract null and void, Ms. Love contracted with Gold Coast Roofing to complete the re-roofing of the Subject Property. Ms. Love paid Gold Coast Roofing $14,900.00 for the completion of the re-roofing. Essentially, Gold Coast Roofing, due to the time that had expired since work was abandoned, had to essentially start over on the re-roofing of the Subject Property. The total investigative costs for this matter incurred by the Department, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, was $258.56.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Finding that Richard Lindley violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint; imposing a fine of $2,500.00 and placing Mr. Lindley’s licenses on probation for a period of four years conditioned upon his payment of the fines, restitution and the costs incurred by the Department, and any other conditions determined to be necessary by the Board, for the Count II violation; requiring that Mr. Lindley make restitution in the amount of $4,468.75 to Ms. Love; and requiring that Mr. Lindley pay the costs incurred by the Department in investigating and prosecuting this matter; and Dismissing Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa A. Comingore, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Richard H. Lindley Richard H. Lindley, d/b/a HCL, Inc. 9146 Arrowhead Drive Greenacres, Florida 33467-1060 Kyle Christopher, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether American Engineering and Development Corporation committed the violations alleged in Load Report and Field Receipt Number 49975L and, if so, the amount of the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency which has the authority to enforce the statutory weight limit restrictions for vehicles traveling on the highways in the state and to impose penalties for violations of the restrictions. Sections 316.640, .535, and .545, Florida Statutes. On January 31, 1995, Officer Joseph Borras, of the Department's Motor Carrier Compliance Office, observed Jose R. Sanchez operating a commercial motor vehicle on State Road 862, which is also known as Interstate 595, in Broward County, Florida. The vehicle was a tractor/trailer combination carrying a hydraulic excavator, both of which were owned by American Engineering. The air-regulated axle of the vehicle was in the up-right position, causing Officer Borras to stop the vehicle. At Officer Borras's request, Mr. Sanchez produced the Overweight/Overdimension Permit issued to American Engineering for "construction and industrial equipment and prefab. structural item on trucktractor semitrailer;" the permit included a permissible gross weight of 132,000 pounds. This permit, known as a blanket permit, contained conditions which, if violated, would void the permit in its entirety. Permit condition number 7 required maps to be attached to the permit identifying the approved routes for the vehicle to which the permit applied. Permit condition number 8 provided that the permit was void if the required maps were not attached. 1/ There were no maps attached to the permit produced by Mr. Sanchez for the American Engineering vehicle, a violation of permit condition number 7. American Engineering's Overweight/Overdimension Permit was, therefore, void in its entirety. Officer Borras had reason to believe that the vehicle exceeded the statutory weight limit of 80,000 pounds established in section 316.535(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (1993). He escorted the vehicle to a safe area and weighed the tractor/trailer combination, together with the hydraulic excavator which it carried, using portable scales issued to him by the Department. The scales had been inspected on January 9, 1995, by technicians of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and were found to be accurate. Officer Borras weighed the vehicle in accordance with the training he had received from the Department and determined the vehicle's total weight to be 133,400 pounds. Based on this weight, Officer Borras determined that the vehicle weighed 53,400 pounds more than the 80,000-pound weight limit, 2/ and he issued Load Report and Field Receipt Number 49975, assessing a penalty of $.05 cents per pound of excess weight. The resulting penalty, as calculated by Officer, was $2,670.00. At the time, American Engineering did not object to the weight determined by Officer Borras, and it immediately paid the penalty assessed in order to obtain the vehicle's release from the Department's custody. American Engineering does not dispute that it violated the conditions of its special permit and that the entire permit was void, including the provision allowing the vehicle and its load to weigh up to 132,000 pounds. American Engineering disputes the Department's determination that the vehicle weighed 133,400 pounds. Benjamin Bolet, the equipment manager for American Engineering contends that it was impossible for the vehicle and its load to weigh 133,400 pounds. Based on the manufacturer's specifications of the operating weight of the hydraulic excavator and the known weight of the tractor/trailer combination, Mr. Bolet estimates that the vehicle, together with its load, should have weighed 116,560 pounds. Mr. Bolet supported American Engineering's position by introducing a Load Report and Field Receipt dated June 23, 1995, which he claimed involved the same or identical equipment and which showed a weight of 118,000 pounds. There are numerous variables which would affect the gross weight of a tractor/trailer combination and hydraulic excavator, including the type and number of tie-downs used to attach the excavator to the trailer, the amount and type of hardware attached to the excavator, the amount of gasoline in the tractor and in the excavator, and the amount of dirt on the equipment. There is no evidence that the condition of the hydraulic excavator was the same as that of the equipment used to determine the manufacturer's specifications. There is, likewise, no evidence that the condition of the tractor/trailer combination and hydraulic excavator weighed June 23 was the same as that of the equipment which is the subject of this proceeding. And, finally, there is no evidence that the scales used by Officer Borras were inaccurate or that the procedures he used in weighing the vehicle were improper. The evidence is clear and convincing that American Engineering violated the conditions of its Overweight/Overdimension Permit, that the permit was, therefore, void, and that the tractor/trailer combination and the hydraulic excavator it carried had a combined gross weight of 133,400 pounds, exceeding the statutory maximum weight of 80,000 pounds by 53,400 pounds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order finding that American Engineering and Development Corporation violated section 316.545(3), Florida Statutes (1993), in the amount of 53,400 pounds and that American Engineering is not entitled to a refund of the $2,670.00 penalty assessed against it. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of July 1996. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 3rd day of July 1996
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents owe Petitioners approximately $2,642.69 for one truck load of watermelons provided by Petitioners at the instigation of Respondents' agent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are producers of agricultural products, watermelons; and Respondent F.H. Dicks Company (FHD), is a dealer of such products in the course of its normal business activity. Respondent South Carolina Insurance Company is the bonding agent for Respondent FHD pursuant to Section 604.20, Florida Statutes. Petitioners generally deal on a cash basis with customers, unless the customer is someone with an established business relationship with Petitioners. Even then, the period that a customer is permitted credit is very limited, normally not exceeding two or three weeks. Two or three days before May 17, 1989, Wiley Bennet, an employee of an individual named Tom Killmon, approached Petitioners regarding the purchase of a quantity of watermelons for certain parties represented by Killmon's business. On May 17, 1989, Bennet called Greg Long and ordered a trailer load of watermelons on behalf of FHD. The unwritten agreement or understanding between the parties was that the melons were to be U.S. number 1 grade and medium in size. Further, a price of eight cents per pound was agreed upon by Bennet and Long. Bennet sent a truck to Petitioners' loading area where it was loaded and returned. Subsequently, the truck was weighed to determine the poundage of melons loaded. The shipment weighed only approximately 3,800 pounds and the parties determined that more melons should be loaded. The truck returned to Petitioners' loading area at approximately 5 p.m. on May 17, 1989, and more melons were added to the load. The truck was weighed again to determine the amount of the shipment. The total load weighed 45,880 pounds. Pursuant to his normal method of doing business and his previous discussion with Bennet, Long expected payment for the total poundage of 45,880 pounds on the evening of May 17, 1989, at the time the final weight of the shipment was determined. Further, although he was familiar with FHD, he was not accustomed to doing business with FHD through the agency of Killmon. He followed the truck to the weight scales where he offered Bennet the opportunity to examine the load, but Bennet declined. When the matter of payment for the load was broached, Bennet stated he did not have a check at the time, but that payment would be forthcoming in "a day or so." As explained by Bennet at the final hearing, he made this statement to Long because he thought the load of melons would be accepted on delivery and money to pay Long would become available. Bennet's statement to Long that he did not have a check with which to make payment corroborates Long's testimony that the agreement between the parties contemplated payment upon completion of loading and weighing of the truck prior to departure of the shipment to its ultimate destination. Petitioners did not intend to "ride the load in" and receive payment after delivery of the melons to FHD's customer. The truck, loaded with watermelons departed,carrying the melons to a customer of FHD located in Hickory Hill, North Carolina. The melons arrived at that destination approximately 36 hours after departure from the loading area on May 17, 1989. Upon arrival in North Carolina on May 19, 1989, a federal fruit and vegetable inspection revealed that the load of melons was 28 percent out of grade. Further, six percent of the load was damaged as the result of bruising. FHD's intended customer refused to accept the truckload of fruit. The melons were then transported to FHD's facility in Barnwell, South Carolina. After disposing of those melons that were damaged, approximately 8,750 pounds in weight, FHD sold the remaining 1,750 melons to a peddler. After paying transportation and inspection costs from the proceeds of that sale, FHD sent Long a check on May 28, 1989, in the amount of $694.60. On June 7, 1989, Long sent an invoice to FHD requesting further payment in the amount of $2,642.69. This amount reflected a deduction by Long for the 28 percent of the load of melons determined to have been "out of grade" as a result of the inspection, but apparently does not reflect the payment of $694.60 already made by FHD. FHD did not pay Long the additional invoice amount. Long subsequently initiated this proceeding by filing Petitioners' claim in the amount of $3,670.40 on July 25, 1989. That claim was amended by Long on August 31, 1989, to reflect the amount invoiced to FHD, $2,642.69. Testimony at the final hearing establishes that the melons in this instance were subjected to extensive damage and bruising as a result of the handling accorded the fruit in the process of inspection in North Carolina. As stated in testimony of F.H. Dicks IV, a load of melons, after inspection, "is about ready for the dump."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring Respondents to pay Petitioners the sum of $2,642.72 minus any of this amount which may have been previously paid by FHD to Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Greg Long Quave-Long Farms P.O. Box 1074 Haines City, FL 33945 F.H. Dicks III F.H. Dicks IV P.O. Box 175 Barnwell, SC 29201 South Carolina Insurance Company 1501 Lady Street Columbia, SC 29201 Hon. Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Mallory Horne General Counsel 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Ben Pridgeon, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Lab Complex Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Respondent violated the weight limitations for truck traffic over a low limit bridge on SR 850 in Palm Beach County, Florida on November 12, 1991, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, was the state agency responsible for enforcing the state statutes involving commercial carrier weight compliance in this state which it does through its Office of Motor Carrier Compliance staffed with uniformed certified law enforcement officers who have the authority to cite drivers and owners of commercial vehicles which violate the load limits on the streets and highways of this state. On November 12, 1991, at approximately 2:30 PM, Officer Roy Neff stopped the Respondent's open board truck for crossing the low limit bridge located on State Road 850 in North Palm Beach, Florida, while apparently overloaded. The truck was carrying a load of drywall sheets and stucco. Officer Neff weighed the vehicle with the Department's portable scales he carried with him. These scales are calibrated for accuracy every 6 months. He utilized the standard Department weighing procedure which calls for a weight under each axle combined to give a total vehicle weight. This vehicle weighed 68,000 pounds loaded, according to this procedure used. Because this particular bridge was allowed no more than 26 tons, (52,000 pounds), of weight for a vehicle in this category, (non-trailer with 2 axles), Officer Neff cited the Respondent's driver for an overweight of 16,000 pounds. Since overweight is penalized at 5 per pound, the penalty assessed was $800.00. The approach to this bridge was clearly marked at several locations with signs indicating the maximum weight permitted for this bridge was 26 tons. These signs were located at sites which were far enough away from the bridge (1 mile and 1/2 mile) to give a driver ample opportunity to turn around or to take an alternate route to his destination on roads situated between the signs and the bridge. When the citation was issued here, the driver posted an acceptable bond and the vehicle was released. Respondent does not deny its vehicle as loaded exceeded the state's weight limitations for this bridge. However, it contends that the amount of overweight was less than that determined by officer Ness and it therefore overpaid the penalty by $252.30. Respondent bases this calculation on what it claims was the load on the truck at the time, multiplied by the weight per piece as provided by the manufacture of the product. In support of its claim, Respondent offered a handwritten, self-made list of weights purportedly taken from manufacturer furnished documents. These weights are then utilized in a computation of total load weight based on another handwritten list of materials, reportedly on the truck at the time, which was reconstructed from the delivery ticket for that trip approximately one week or so after the citation was issued. The weakness of this evidence is compounded by the fact that there is no weight in the "manufacturer's" list for the 30 sheets of 14 foot long drywall which Respondent claims weigh a total of 4,284 pounds. There is also no source for the 6,000 pounds of stucco. Presumably, the "75 stucco" relates to 75 bags at 80 pounds per bag. No doubt Respondent's protestations of overpayment are honestly made and made with good intentions. However, its evidence in support of its claim does not outweigh the evidence that the Department scales used to conduct the inspection here were calibrated for accuracy every 6 months. There is no evidence to indicate either that they were not accurate when used or that the weighing procedures followed were improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assessing a civil fine in the amount of $800.00 against the Respondent, Delta Building Supplies. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS - 58 ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 20th day of July, 1992. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Tim Czencz Delta Building Supplies 12951 SW 124th Street Miami, Florida 33186 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue is whether a penalty should be imposed on Pettegrove Equipment for driving a truck over a bridge when the truck weighed more than the posted bridge weight limit.
Findings Of Fact Raymond S. Cran drove a loaded dump truck owned by Pettegrove Equipment over a bridge on State Road 850 which crosses over Florida's Turnpike on September 26, 1990. The truck weighed 69,100 pounds. The truck was a straight truck, not a tractor trailer combination. The bridge which Mr. Cran drove across is a low limit bridge. Signs were posted in five places on the approaches to the bridge of the 26 ton limit for straight trucks. The first is at the intersection of State Road 850 and East Highland Pines Drive, which states "Weight Limit Restriction Ahead." One mile from the bridge at the intersection of Green Meadows Road is a second sign which states "Weight Limit" and has silhouettes of a straight truck and of a tractor trailer combination, showing a 26 ton limit for the straight truck and a 38 ton limit for the tractor trailer combination (tractor trailers have a higher limit because their weight is distributed differently). Similar signs are posted one half mile from the bridge, two tenths of a mile from the bridge, and at the foot of the bridge. Officer Joseph Barkas, a Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Compliance Officer, stopped Mr. Cran and prepared the Load Report and Filed Receipt describing the incident. The Respondent did not dispute that the truck was 17,100 pounds overweight, nor that the penalty for crossing the bridge based on that weight is $865, as shown on the Load Report and Field Receipt. Pettegrove Equipment disputes the fine because it's driver misunderstood the weight limit signs on the approach to the bridge. The silhouette of the straight truck is much shorter than the silhouette of the tractor trailer combination. Mr. Cran believed that the 26 ton limit for a straight truck applied to only small trucks, such as pickup trucks, and not to a large dump truck like the one he was driving. This contention is unpersuasive. Ordinary pickup trucks are incapable of carrying loads any where near 26 tons. Mr. Cran's interpretation is simply unreasonable. The limitations for straight trucks were clearly posted, and were violated.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation sustaining the fine of $865 assessed against Pettegrove Equipment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of June 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon Whittier, Esquire Assistant General Counsel WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 4th day of June 1992. Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ann Porath, Esquire Wellington Country Plaza Suite 209 12773 Forrest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33414 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact On or about September 11, 1989, a commercial, dump truck owned by Petitioner, Alamazan Brothers Trucking, Inc., was travelling on State Road 807. Mr. Michael Roberts, Safety and Hazardous Materials Officer for Respondent, Department of Transportation, noticed that the truck did not have the required identification on the door and stopped the truck for further investigation. After the truck stopped, Mr. Roberts noted that the truck possessed an expired temporary license tag, and the driver did not have a valid registration for the truck. Mr. Roberts, then, weighed the truck with his portable scale and calculated a gross weight of 65,900 pounds. Mr. Roberts gave the driver the opportunity to contact the owner of the truck about the registration and, in accordance with policy of the Department, allowed the owner over one hour to produce a valid registration. A representative of the owner appeared and showed Mr. Roberts a duplicate registration certificate purchased the same day as the incident which indicated that the authorized gross weight for the truck was 24,680 pounds. Mr. Roberts made the determination that the registration was not valid at the time of the stop and imposed a fine for overweight of $1,545. The fine was calculated for the amount of the gross weight in excess of 35,000 pounds times five cents per pound. Existent law establishes that, for the purposes of calculation of a penalty such as the one at issue, the authorized gross weight for an unregistered vehicle is 35,000 pounds. An additional $50 was imposed as the fine for not having the required identification on the door of the truck. The total penalty of $1,595 was paid under protest. However, Petitioner did, in fact, have a valid registration on the day of the stbp. Through administrative delay, the registration certificate had not been mailed to Petitioner. On or around September 7, 1989, Petitioner purchased the truck and a temporary tag was issued to Petitioner by the dealer from which he purchased the truck. At that time, an application for registration was made to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The application was for a registration authorizing a gross weight of 64,000 pounds. Petitioner had not received the permanent tag or registration by the date the stop occurred. After Petitioner was alerted at the stop, Petitioner obtained a duplicate registration within the time allotted to him by Respondent. This duplicate, the one shown to Mr. Roberts on the day of the stop, indicated an authorized gross weight of 24,680 pounds, an obvious typographical error. The gross weight did not match the gross weight applied for, instead, it duplicated the amount of the empty weight into the gross weight category. On September 13, 1989, Petitioner returned the form to the issuer and requested a corrected duplicate registration. The second duplicate also was in error. This time the form indicated the correct gross weight of 64,000 pounds, but, also, repeated that gross weight amount in the empty weight category. At the hearing, Petitioner also presented the application for registration which indicated it had applied for and was taxed for a gross weight of 64,000 pounds. It was only due to administrative delay that the correct registration was not presented at the time of the stop. However, no competent evidence was received which indicated that the truck did possess the required identification on the door, and Mr. Robert's testimony about the lack of such identification is deemed credible. Although the correct gross weight for which Petitioner is licensed is 64,000, his load at the time of the stop was 65,900 or 1,900 in excess of his 64,000 pound authorized amount. At five cents a pound his penalty for overweight should be $95.00 and not $1,545.00. The $95.00 plus the $50.00 for the failure to display the required identification yields a corrected fee of $145.00 and a refund due to Petitioner of $1,400.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order correcting the fine imposed on Petitioner, establishing the appropriate fine at $145.00 and refunding $1,400 to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of June, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2088 The following represents the rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The rulings are by paragraph within the proposed findings of fact and indicate the paragraph in the findings of fact portion of the attached recommended order which addresses the proposed finding of fact, if deemed appropriate. RESPONDENT Adopted in relevant part in paragraphs 1,2 and 3. Adopted in relevant part in paragraphs 4,5 and 9. Adopted in relevant part in paragraphs 6,7,8 and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Dewey H. Varner, Esquire Varner, Cole & Seaman 2601 Tenth Avenue, North, Suite 410 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Vernon T. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Robert Scanlan Interim General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Did the Respondent operate an unregistered commercial truck in Florida? Did the Petitioner correctly assess a penalty of $1,250 pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, regulating operation of a commercial vehicle on a highway in the State of Florida?
Findings Of Fact On June 27, 1991, Sergeant Tommy Jackson, observed a dump truck traveling eastward on 65C in Gadsden County, Florida. The Sergeant stopped the truck which did not have a tag. The driver of the truck, which did not have a name on it, was asked for the registration. The driver could not produce the registration. Sergeant Jackson called Officer Bennie Lee York, Jr., to come assist him in weighing the dump truck on portable scales. The vehicle weighed 60,000 pounds. The vehicle's serial number was checked through the Florida Division of Motor Vehicle's computer which determined the vehicle had no Florida tag or registration. Sergeant Jackson and Officer York went to the job site to which the truck was bound to verify the tag and registration of the vehicle. A Georgia registration and incorrect tag was presented. Sergeant Jackson went to his nearby home to call and verify the registration with the Georgia authorities in Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia reported no record of a tag for the vehicle in the State of Georgia. Sergeant Jackson returned to the job site and advised the job foreman that the State of Georgia did not report the vehicle as being registered in Georgia. About two hours later, Mr. Kinard of General Development brought a registration that matched the truck serial number. However, it was for a non-apportioned Georgia commercial tag. Officer York advised Mr. Kinard that an apportioned International Registration Plan tag or a Florida Commercial registration was required to operate a commercial vehicle in Florida. Officer York issued a load report to General Development assessing a penalty for being 25,000 pounds over the legal limit in the State of Florida of 35,000 for a commercial vehicle. The amount of the penalty was $1,250.00, or 5 cents for every pound of vehicle weight over 35,000 pounds. The Respondent admitted the violation, however, the Respondent's representative indicated in his plea for mitigation that the driver had taken the truck without authorization. The statutes governing the operation of motor vehicles provide for strict liability against the owner of a vehicle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finalizing assessment of the $1,250.00 penalty assessed against General Development pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of February 1992. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 26th day of February 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ray Campbell, Secretary General Development Post Office Box 654 Quincy, Florida 32351 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
