Szot v. Commonwealth
Szot v. Commonwealth
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Benedict E. Szot, Jr. .and Louis Szot, individually and trading as Ben’s Auto Repair (appellants) appeal an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which, after consideration of evidence presented at a de novo hearing, upheld an action of the
Onr scope of review in this matter is limited to a determination of whether or not the trial court has committed an error of law or the necessary findings were supported by substantial evidence. Kennedy v. Department of Transportation, 52 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 619, 416 A.2d 614 (1980).
After carefully reviewing the record in this matter, we find ample support for the trial court’s findings. State Police Trooper Lawrence Jackson testified that he observed a 1963 oil tanker truck in a deteriorated
As to Benedict Szot, we believe that -the aforementioned transaction indicates that he also engaged in improper record keeping procedures as ¡set forth in ■the 67 Pa. Code §175.202 (b). Thus, the six-month suspension of his certificates as an -official inspection mechanic and -of his appointment to inspect motor vehicles was also allowable under Sections 4724
Concerning the trial court’s additional .suspension of Benedict Szo-t’s certificates for an additional three months, Trooper Jackson testified that there were some 15 rust holes on the aforementioned truck, which had been inspected by Benedict, .the -smallest -of which was an inch and a half wide, and that they could not have occurred in the time that had elapsed between the inspection and his first observation of the vehicle. See Cariola v. Department of Transportation, 66 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 360, 444 A.2d 827 (1982). Under 67 Pa. Code §175.133, a vehicle shall be rejected by the inspector “if torn metal, glass or other loose or dislocated parts protrude from the surface of the vehicle ... [or] rust spots are completely through the me-tal, larger
We will therefore affirm the order of the trial court.
Order
And Now, this 4th day of March, 1983, the order of the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.
Trooper Jackson, testified as follows:
Whait I observed was the front window in 'the vebicle was broken in two places; both side windows were broken; tbe right running board was rusted . . . right running board rusted through; both front tires were bald, had no tread whatsoever; both sides of the vehicle had numerous holes rusted through, rusted completely, measured the smallest and that was au inch and a half.
The right door had no handles for the door, or window; tbe left door had no inside door handle; and also had a large rock in the front of the vehicle to hold the brake in place.
This officer then visited station 8655, and spoke with Mr. Louis Szot who stated that the vehicle was properly inspected by his brother, Benedict Szot, and he put the Sticker on, but did not see the vehicle inspected but knew it was.
*411 And I told Mm that It was impossible to get ¡the vehicle on the lift, it was an oil -tanker, and ¡he then stated they put it on a jack.
75 Pa. C. S. §4724.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.