Dale G. Larrimore
Larrimore
& Farnish, LLP
Since
the earliest days of the automobile, the Supreme Court of the United States has
broadly sustained the power of a state to regulate the use of motor vehicles on
its highways.[i]
Motor
vehicles are dangerous machines, and, even when skillfully and carefully
operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In
the public interest the state may make and enforce regulations reasonably
calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and nonresidents
alike, who use its highways.[ii]
State
regulation of the use of Commonwealth roadways has long been accepted as a
valid exercise of a state's police powers and general regulations as contained
in the Vehicle Code are necessary to promote the safety of persons and property
within Pennsylvania.[iii] The
legislature has determined that the safety of persons on the streets and highways within
Pennsylvania is materially affected by the degree of compliance with state laws
and local ordinances relating to the operation of vehicles, and that a
motorist's violation of such laws and ordinances is evidence that the motorist
engaged in conduct that is “likely to endanger the safety of persons and
property.”[iv]
The
Vehicle Code must be applied uniformly throughout the Commonwealth in all
political subdivisions and no local authority has the power to enact or enforce
any ordinance on a matter covered by the Vehicle Code unless expressly
authorized.[v]
The plenary power of the Legislature over the highways of the Commonwealth is
of ancient standing, and seldom, if ever, has been questioned.[vi]
Highways are recognized as the property of the people, not of a particular
district, but of the whole state; and they are subject to the absolute
direction and control of the Commonwealth.[vii]
The public roads of Pennsylvania are laid out and open for the use of all
persons on equal terms; that is, to all who comply with the reasonable
regulations of the duly constituted authorities.
The
right to use a public highway for travel on, or in the transportation of
merchandise over, is not unrestricted.[viii]
It is for the Commonwealth, acting through the Legislature, to direct the
conditions under which this limited right shall be exercised.[ix]
It alone has the power to regulate the manner and circumstances under which
automobiles may be operated upon Pennsylvania highways. This power
is vested in the Legislature, and is based, upon its right to control and
regulate the use of the highways, buttressed by the inherent police power of
the state.
The
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) is charged with the duty of
administering the Vehicle Code.[x]
In its proper exercise of the police power of the Commonwealth, the Legislature
has the obligation to prescribe how and by whom motor vehicles shall be
operated on the highways, in order to promote public safety.[xi]
The most recent codification of these laws was adopted in 1976 as the “Vehicle
Code,”[xii] containing the laws controlling the licensing and
operation of vehicles in this Commonwealth.
The Vehicle Code includes the “Rules
of the Road”[xiii]
as well as various other provisions, some of which specifically regulate
vehicle operation.[xiv]
Unquestionably, all motorists have a duty to obey these rules of the road.[xv]
It is well-settled that a violation of the Vehicle Code that causes harm to
another person constitutes negligence per
se.[xvi]
Negligence per se applies when an
individual violates an applicable statute, regulation or ordinance designed to
prevent a public harm,[xvii]
and proof that the defendant violated an applicable statute satisfies the duty
and breach elements of the elements of a negligence cause of action.[xviii]
[i]
Kane v. New
Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 167, 37 S. Ct. 30, 31, 61 L. Ed. 222 (1916); Hendrick v.
State of Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S. Ct. 140, 59 L. Ed. 385 (1915).
[ii]
Hess v.
Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 356, 47 S. Ct. 632, 633, 71 L. Ed. 1091 (1927), quoted
with approval in Com. v. Funk, 323 Pa. 390, 186 A. 65 (1936).
[iii]
Com. v.
Arnold, 215 Pa. Super. 444, 258 A.2d 885 (1969).
[iv]
75
Pa.C.S. §1581, Art. I (a)(1) and (2).
[v]
75
Pa.C.S. §6101. See also Com. v. Pugh
and Muha, 22 Pa. D. & C.3d 703, 1982 WL 736 (C.P. 1982).
[vi]
Com. v.
Funk, 323 Pa. 390, 394, 186 A. 65, 67 (1936), citing O'Connor v. Pittsburgh, 18
Pa. 187, 1851 WL 5955 (1851); Commonwealth v. Erie & N.E.R. Co., 27 Pa.
339, 1856 WL 7224 (1856); Southwark R. Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 47 Pa. 314,
1864 WL 4683 (1864); City of Duquesne v. Fincke, 269 Pa. 112, 112 A. 130
(1920); Foley v. Beach Creek Extension R. Co., 283 Pa. 588, 129 A. 845 (1925).
[vii]
Com. v.
Funk, 323 Pa. 390, 186 A. 65 (1936), citing Case of Philadelphia & T.R.
Co., 6 Whart. 25, 43, 1840 WL 3923 (Pa. 1840).
[viii]
Com.
v. Dennison, 48 Pa. Super. 293, 1911 WL 4686 (1911).
[ix]
City of
Allegheny v. Zimmerman, 95 Pa. 287, 1880 WL 13947 (1880).
[x]
75
Pa.C.S. §6102(a). The rules and regulations promulgated by PennDOT, pursuant to
the authority granted by the Vehicle Code, are contained in Title 67 of the
Pennsylvania Code.
[xi]
Com.
v. Funk, 323 Pa. 390, 396, 186 A. 65, 68 (1936).
[xii]
75
Pa.C.S. §§101 et seq.; known and cited as the “Vehicle Code” (frequently
referred to, inaccurately, as the “Motor
Vehicle Code”).
[xiii]
75
Pa.C.S. §§3301 et seq.
[xv]
Ammerman
v. Lush, 236 Pa. Super. 231, 345 A.2d 271 (1975).
[xvi]
Drew v.
Work, 2014 PA Super 137, 95 A.3d 324, 338 (2014); Schemberg v. Smicherko, 2014
PA Super 23, 85 A.3d 1071, 1075 (2014); Lahr v. City of York, 972 A.2d 41 (Pa.
Commw. Ct. 2009), Sodders v. Fry, 32 A.3d 882 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). For a more
detailed discussion of negligence per se,
see Shamnoski v. PG Energy, Div. of Southern Union Co., 579 Pa. 652, 858 A.2d
589 (2004), and Jenkins v. Wolf, 2006 PA Super 321, 911 A.2d 568 (2006).
[xvii]
Ford
ex rel. Pringle v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 848 A.2d 1038, 1050 n.11
(Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
[xviii]
Sodders
v. Fry, 32 A.3d 882, 887 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment