Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Crawford

Decision Date09 December 1988
Citation121 Pa.Cmwlth. 613,550 A.2d 1053
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant, v. Gregory Eugene CRAWFORD, Appellee.
CourtPennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Raymond A. Swan, Asst. Counsel, Pittsburgh, Harold H. Cramer, Asst. Counsel, John L. Heaton, Chief Counsel, Harrisburg, for appellant.

Wayne Hundertmark, Seneca, for appellee.

Before BARRY and SMITH, JJ., and NARICK, Senior Judge.

NARICK, Senior Judge.

Before us is an appeal by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation (Department) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County sustaining the appeal of Gregory Eugene Crawford (Crawford) from the suspension of his operating privileges by the Department. The trial court sustained the appeal based upon its determination at Crawford's criminal trial that Crawford did not refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test.1 For the reasons set forth herein, we vacate and remand.

The primary issue presented for our resolution on appeal is whether the Department is "collaterally estopped" from establishing in a civil license suspension proceeding that Crawford refused to submit to chemical testing because it had been previously determined with respect to the criminal charges filed against Crawford that he did not refuse to submit to a breathalyzer.2

It is well settled that a Department suspension proceeding for a refusal to take a breathalyzer test is an independent civil proceeding separate and distinct from any criminal charges brought against a motorist. Hando v. Commonwealth, 84 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 63, 478 A.2d 932 (1984); Wisniewski v. Commonwealth, 73 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 318, 457 A.2d 1334 (1983); Commonwealth v. Clawson, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 87, 305 A.2d 732 (1973); Commonwealth v. Abraham, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 535, 300 A.2d 831 (1973). The civil proceeding to revoke or suspend a license is not intended as punishment; rather, it is designed to protect the public by denying intoxicated motorists the privilege of using the roadways. Hando; Abraham. Also, a judgment in the criminal proceeding has no effect on the outcome of the civil proceeding because for a criminal proceeding the guilt of the accused must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and in a civil proceeding it is sufficient if the offense is established by a preponderance of the evidence. Abraham. Thus, an acquittal of the criminal charge of driving under the influence is of no consequence to the outcome of the civil proceeding. Clawson; Abraham.

Hence, the outcome of the criminal proceeding cannot collaterally estop the Department from suspending a motorist's license in civil proceedings. Collateral estoppel will effectively bar a subsequent cause of action if four elements exist: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the one presented in the later action; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with the party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the party against whom it is asserted has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue and question in a prior action. Glasgow v. Department of Transportation, 108 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 48, 529 A.2d 576 (1987). Clearly, the third and fourth elements of the "collateral estoppel" test are not present here. Firstly, we do not believe the Department and the District Attorney stand in sufficient relationship so that the Department could be considered the same party as, or in privity with the District Attorney. Secondly, as we have already stated, the Department's civil suspension proceeding is separate and distinct from the criminal proceeding initiated by the Clarion County District Attorney.3

This Court has held that a de novo hearing before the court of common pleas shall be conducted when a licensee appeals the Department's suspension of his license pursuant to Section 1547(b) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547 (refusal to submit to chemical testing). Department of Transportation v. Quinlan, 47 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 214, 408 A.2d 173 (1979) (where this Court remanded for a hearing on the merits because the trial court refused to admit testimony of a police officer, thereby preventing the Department from meeting its burden of proof). Also see Liebler v. Department of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Yeoman v. Com., Health Policy Bd.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • November 19, 1998
    ... ... Worton, 234 Cal.App.3d at 1638, 286 Cal.Rptr. 410; Commonwealth, Dept. of Transp. v. Crawford, 121 Pa.Cmwlth. 613, 550 A.2d 1053 (1988) ...         For claim ... ...
  • Yeoman v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • November 19, 1998
    ...or could have been brought in support of the cause of action. Worton, 234 Cal. App. 3d at 1638; Commonwealth, Dept. of Transp. v. Crawford, 121 Pa. Commw. 613, 550 A.2d 1053 (1988). [21] For claim preclusion to bar further litigation, certain elements must be present. First, there must be i......
  • Miller v. Epling
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 21, 2012
    ...of a related criminal charge is irrelevant to the disposition of the administrative proceedings.); Commonwealth v. Crawford, 121 Pa.Cmwlth. 613, 616, 550 A.2d 1053, 1054 (1988) (an acquittal of the criminal charge of driving under the influence is of no consequence to the outcome of the civ......
  • Com. v. Wolfe
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • October 30, 1996
    ...proceedings is the protection of the public and not the punishment of the drunken motorist. In Pennsylvania Department of Transportation v. Crawford, 121 Pa.Cmwlth. 613, 550 A.2d 1053 (1988), the Commonwealth Court addressed the issue of whether the Department of Transportation could establ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT