Allen v. Strelecki

• Decision Date: 04 December 1967
• Docket Number: No. A--6,A--6
• Citation: 236 A.2d 129,50 N.J. 410
• Parties: Edgar W. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. June STRELECKI, Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles in the Department of Law and Public Safety of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 410

50 N.J. 410

236 A.2d 129

Edgar W. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. June STRELECKI, Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles in the Department of Law and Public Safety of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent.

No. A--6.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Sept. 12, 1967.

Decided Dec. 4, 1967.

Donald E. Clarick, New Brunswick, for appellant (Clarick & Clarick, Elizabeth, attorneys).

Jeffrey R. Lowe, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent (Joseph A. Hoffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel, Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FRANCIS, J.

Plaintiff, Edgar W. Allen, sought a review in the Appellate Division of an order of the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles suspending his driver's license for a period of one year from December 18, 1965. R.R. 4:88--8. The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion, and we granted Allen's petition for certification. 48 N.J. 136, 224 A.2d 322 (1966).

On August 5, 1964 around 3 A.M., while driving his truck on Route 537, Millstone Township, Allen was involved in an accident in which a pedestrain died. The circumstances were rather unusual but need not be recounted in any detail because they play no substantial part in the controversy before the Court. Although he became aware that his truck had come in contact with the victim, he did not stop and render aid, nor did he report the incident to the police or to the Division of Motor Vehicles. Some time later the police investigation uncovered his involvement. He was then charged in the Municipal Court with violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4--96 (reckless driving), N.J.S.A. 39:4--97 (careless driving), N.J.S.A. 39:4--129 (leaving the scene of an accident) and N.J.S.A. 39:4--130 (failure to report an accident). On October 5, 1964 he pleaded guilty to the violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4--129 and 39:4--130; the careless driving and reckless driving charges were dismissed. Later the Grand Jury declined to indict on a Death by Auto charge.

Some years ago the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles adopted a 'Point System Regulation' under which 'points' are assessed against a licensed driver upon violation of various sections of the statutes governing operation of motor vehicles. The number of points imposed varies depending upon the type of the infraction. Under the established scale, leaving the scene of an accident results in assessment of eight points against the violator's record. According to the Director's statement the same number of points, i.e. eight, is assessed irrespective of whether the accident involved minor property damage or a death; 'they are assessed on mere evidence that a conviction has been recorded.'

More specifically in reference to this case the pertinent parts of the Director's regulation in force at the time of the accident said:

'The New Jersey Point System is a driver corrective measure designed to discipline traffic law violation repeaters.

It operates exclusively from the central office of the Division of Motor Vehicles, in Trenton. The driver records which form the basis for action against repeaters are traffic law convictions in the magistrates' courts which the law requires the courts to report to the division. Traffic law convictions of New Jersey drivers in other States and Canadian Provinces likewise become a part of the operator's record.

A driver amassing 12 or more points within a three-year period dating from the latest violation, becomes subject to a hearing before the Director, in Trenton, on a rule to show cause why his driving privilege should not be revoked. * * *

Only moving violations such as speeding, reckless driving, ignoring a traffic signal, etc., are charged against the driver's record. * * *

The following scale of points is observed:

Points

* * * * * *

Involvment in fatal accident

(if held responsible) ............. 12

Leaving scene of accident .......... 8

* * *.'

This regulation was revised on January 13, 1965 when the number of points for previously unspecified violations was listed. However, the point assessment for involvement in a fatal accident was eliminated, i.e., 'Involvement in fatal accident (if held responsible) * * * 12 points.' Since then there has been no reference to fatal accidents in the regulation. The suggestion is that the Director prefers to deal independently with fatal-accident cases under the broad power conferred by N.J.S.A. 39:5--30 over licenses and their suspension or revocation.

The point system appears to be administered in this fashion: When conviction of a listed violation is reported by a municipal court, the scheduled points are assessed against the driver automatically. The form used for this report does not require notation that a fatality was involved. The assessment of points is fed into a computer which then discloses the number of points accumulated by the driver and the offenses involved. The listing of the last offense in the computer report, such as leaving the scene of accident, would not reveal that a fatality was involved, nor would there be any particularization of the circumstances attending the listed infractions. When this report discloses 12 or more points, the driver's license is not affected until the Director, through the designated member of her staff, reviews it and notes in the blank space provided on the form the proposed length of suspension. In fixing the period ordinarily the factors considered are the nature of the Title 39 violations involved, their frequency and number, the total number of points accumulated and the driver's age. The specific facts or circumstances under which the violations occurred apparently do not normally enter into the decision as to the length of the suspension. As the Director informs us, this is because the tremendous volume of violations reported, points assessed and suspensions imposed make it administratively necessary to operate in this largely automatic fashion. By way of illustration, the Director has advised that in 1966 there were approximately 25,000 notices of proposed suspensions sent to licensees for point system violations. During the same period action was taken to suspend the driving privileges of 349 drivers for involvement in fatal accidents. We are told also that no statistics are available to show the number of drivers whose fatal accident also involves a point system case arising from a violation of the Motor Vehicle Act which, although not a causative factor in the production of the accident, nevertheless brought their cumulated points up to 12 or more, and thus warranted suspension.

According to the Director, cases arising out of fatalities are generally given more complete attention and consideration than those not involving death. Following notice of the fatal accident, the Division awaits the investigation report of the New Jersey State Police. In the meantime, if the Division receives notice of the driver's conviction in the municipal court of some Motor Vehicle Act violation arising out of the accident, and this violation calls for assessment of points, the information is fed to the computer. If the computer shows an accumulation of 12 or more points this fact is reported automatically on a form which contains a notice of proposed suspension, with the period of suspension blank. The blank is filled in by the proper person as above indicated, and sent to the driver, notifying him that he may request a hearing thereon. The notice sets forth the specific violations for which the 12 points have been amassed. There is no reference to the on-going investigation of the death aspect of the accident, or to the fact that a further suspension may be imposed if the investigation reveals culpable conduct.

When the State Police investigation is completed and forwarded to the Division, it is turned over to the Fatal Accident Board for review. This Board was established by the Director to study the results of investigation in death cases, and to recommend whether a notice of proposed suspension should be issued to the motorist. If the Board finds culpable conduct on the part of the driver, a notice of proposed suspension is sent to him indicating the effective date thereof as well as the grounds therefor, and advising him of his right to hearing. At no time, either during review of the investigation or when it recommends sending a notice of suspension, does the Board know whether or not the driver has been convicted of a motor vehicle law violation arising out of the accident, which violation may already have resulted in suspension of the driver's license, or may subsequently have that result, because of the accumulation of 12 or more points. Thus it is possible, as the Director concedes, for a driver connected with a fatal accident to have his license suspended for accumulated points, some of which reflect the naked conviction record of a violation associated with the mishap. Thereafter, following review of the circumstances of the accident, the driver may be given a further suspension. In connection with the Board's study of the accident, obviously a recommendation for suspension of driving privileges would not be limited to situations in which there was a finding of responsibility for the fatal accident. For example, investigation might establish that a driver was not guilty of carelessness which caused the mishap. But if such faultless driver left the scene of the accident knowing that his car had been involved, without finding out if the victim lying in the roadway was deal or alive, and without attempting to furnish or to obtain aid, the Board might well treat the violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4--129 as sufficient in itself to warrant suspension.

The Director explains that this procedure is a matter of administrative expediency and, in fact, necessity. She says it would be impracticable to establish a method which would integrate the fatal accident investigation and review by the Board, with the point...