In 2005, the General Assembly rewrote laws covering special permits that allow trucks to operate at weights above the general 80,000-pound limit. In doing so, the legislature’s wording apparently was less than precise, for the state’s second highest court on Feb. 3 held that a $24,500 fine against a trucking company was not legal because the law was ambiguous.
The facts in the case are simple enough: Daily Express, Inc. obtained a permit from the N.C. Department of Transportation’s Division of Highways to operate a truck on a single trip through the state at a gross weight of up to 196,000 pounds. Without the “single trip permit,” the legal limit for the truck and trailer would have been 80,000 pounds.
On June 8, 2006, while making use of the permit, the truck pulled into a weigh station in Hendersonville. State regulations required a front and rear escort for trucks with single-trip permits if they weigh 150,000 pounds or more. Daily Express’ truck weighed 181,180 pounds and had only a front escort.
A state trooper issued a $500 penalty for the failure to have a second escort vehicle. He also issued a separate $24,492.03 citation based upon the difference between the truck’s actual weight of 181,180 pounds and the 80,000-pound limit for trucks without a special permit. Once a second escort vehicle arrived, the truck was allowed to proceed under its original single-trip permit.
Daily Express challenged the legality of the $24,492.03 citation, contending it should have been issued only the $500 ticket. After a Superior Court judge ruled in the company’s favor, the state brought the case before Court of Appeals.
The particulars of law
The issue before the appeals court, like the trial court below, was how to mesh two separate sections of state law, 20-119(d) on single-trip permits and 20-118(e) on penalties for operating an overweight truck.
“The primary issue … is whether section 20-119(d) and section 20-118(e) authorize [the Highway Patrol] to issue an additional overweight penalty based on the difference between the actual weight of the truck (181,180 pounds) and the statutory weight listed in section 20-118(b) (80,000 pounds), despite the fact that the actual weight does not violate the weight limit set out in the special permit,” Judge Robert C. Hunter wrote for the Court of Appeals.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-119(d) states that the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety may assess a $500 civil penalty for failing to have the required number of escort vehicles. The section also provides that:
“In addition to the penalties provided by this subsection, a civil penalty in accordance with G.S. 20-118(e)(1) and (3) may be assessed if a vehicle is operating without the issuance of a required permit, operating off permitted route of travel, operating without the proper number of certified escorts as determined by the actual loaded weight of the vehicle combination, fails to comply with travel restrictions of the permit, or operating with improper license. Fees assessed for permit violations under this subsection shall not exceed a maximum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).”
Gen. Stat. § 20-118(e)1 and e(3), in turn state that the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety shall assess a civil penalty for being above axle-weight limits or the weight listed in a special permit. Unlike Gen. Stat. § 20-119(d), there is no limit on penalties under Gen. Stat. § 20-118(e)1 and e(3).
When interpreting statues, courts look to give meaning to every section and word. In this case, the Court of Appeals found that there was no way to so.
If the idea was for the Highway Patrol to issue an additional weight penalty for operating without enough escort vehicles, the appeals court found two ambiguities, that the Highway Patrol “may” assess a penalty under 20-119(d) but “shall” do so § 20-118(e)1 and e(3), and that penalties are capped under 20-119(d) but unlimited under § 20-118(e)1 and e(3).
The appeals court noted that there was little evidence of what the Assembly was intending to do when it rewrote the sections in 2005. “In sum, regardless of the manner in which we interpret the statutes, some language is rendered meaningless,” Hunter wrote.
“If the legislature intended to impose an additional weight penalty against a special permit holder as if that permit holder had no permit at all, then the language of section 20-119 must be clarified to relate that intent. Without such unambiguous language, we must construe the statute in favor of plaintiff, the party being penalized.”
The case is Daily Express, Inc. v. N.C. Department of Crime Control & Public Safety, (08-562).
Michael Lowrey is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.