Gula v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
Gula v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
John Gula appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, sustaining the Department of Transportation’s fifteen-month suspension of Gula’s automobile inspection privileges for two violations of The Vehicle Code,
The failure of a mechanic to meet any of the requirements of departmental regulations concerning inspection constitutes a faulty inspection, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Snyder, 37 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 359, 391 A.2d 3 (1978). In our recent decision in Cariola v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 66 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 360, 444 A.2d 827 (1982), a similar case, we held that a state police officer’s testimony that extensive rust on the vehicle could not have developed within the forty-eight days between the inspection and the discovered violation constituted substantial evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the common pleas court.
Order
Now, October 28, 1982, the order of August 11, 1980 in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, at No. S-336-1980, is affirmed.
Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, as amended, 75 Pa. C. S. §4724(a), which provides:
(a) General rule. — The department shall, supervise and inspect official inspection stations and may suspend the*482 certificate of appointment issued to a station which it finds is not properly equipped or conducted or which has violated or failed to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter or regulations adopted by the department.
The department shall maintain a list of all stations holding certificates of appointment and of those whose certificates of appointment have been suspended. Any suspended certificate of appointment and all unused certificates of inspection shall be returned immediately to the department.
67 Pa. Code §175.221. This section provides for suspension due to faulty inspections and careless recordkeeping.
Our scope of review where, as here, the trial court hears the matter de novo is limited to a determination of whether or not the court based its findings of fact on substantial evidence or committed an error of law. Cariola, citing Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Kobaly, 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 46, 347 A.2d 759 (1975).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.