South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Harbin
| Citation | 226 S.C. 585,86 S.E.2d 466 |
| Decision Date | 15 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 16977,16977 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff, v. Charles Ralph HARBIN et al., Defendants. |
Atty. Gen. T. C. Callison, Asst. Atty. Gen., James S. Verner, for plaintiff.
Thomas A. Wofford, J. Wiley Brown, Greenville, for defendants.
By writ of certiorari, we are asked to review an order of the Circuit Court setting aside and declaring null and void a suspension by the Highway Department of the driver's license of defendant Charles Ralph Harbin. The suspension was made under a regulation of the Highway Department known as the 'Point System'. The Court below held that the Department was without authority to adopt this regulation. The correctness of this conclusion is challenged on this appeal.
Effective as of November 24, 1953, the Department issued the following rule or regulation:
'In order to do everything within reason to reduce traffic accidents the Department will commence immediately to charge each traffic violation committed and reported to the Department against the record of the offending driver. Each violation will be graded as to seriousness in accordance with the following table which is based on violations involved in accidents during 1952.
'Moving Violation Violation
Points
--------------------------------------------------------------- --------------
'Disregarding sign or signal 3 1/3
Driving under influence 10
Entering highway without stopping 3 1/3
Following too closely 2
No right of way 3 1/3
Passing improperly 2
Passing stopped school bus 3 1/3
Reckless driving 5
Driving too fast for conditions 3 1/3
Improper turning 2
Driving on wrong side of road 2
Failure to dim lights 2
Improper lights 2
No signal or improper signal 2
Improper parking 2
Responsibility for accident involving personal injury and/or 5 1
property damage in excess of $100.00
Responsibility for accident involving no personal injury and 2 2
property damage of $100.00 or less
All warnings and minor violations 2
Note FN1. 'When violation is driving under influence 10 points will be charged.
Note FN2. 'Or point value of violation involved, whichever is the higher.
licenses under these circumstances is required by law.
'In order to give this program maximum effectiveness members of the Highway Patrol should exert every effort to encourage local enforcement authorities to send to the Department copies of all violation warnings and summonses issued by them, and copies of reports of all accidents they investigate.'
In December, 1953, the defendant Harbin forfeited a bond for speeding in North Carolina; in January, 1954, he was given a warning ticket in South Carolina for driving 'too fast for conditions'; in February, 1954, he forfeited bond for speeding in South Carolina; and in March, 1954, forfeited bond for the same offense in Georgia. All of the foregoing was duly reported to the Highway Department resulting, under the foregoing regulation, in a total of 12 points, 10 for speeding and 2 for the warning ticket, being charged against him.
On May 7, 1954, he was notified by the Highway Department to appear at its office in Greenville on May 14th. He duly appeared and was interviewed by a sergeant of the Highway Patrol. He admitted forfeiting bonds for speeding and receiving a warning ticket on the occasions mentioned. His only explanation was that the speedometer on his tractor-trailer had been out of repair for a considerable time. After this interview, the sergeant recommended the suspension of his license. On May 22, 1954, he received notice from the Highway Department that effective as of that date, his license was suspended for a period of five months. Immediately thereafter he petitioned the Circuit Court for a review of the suspension. On his petition and the return filed by the Highway Department, a hearing was had and testimony taken before the Circuit Judge. He concluded, as hereinbefore stated, that the Highway Department was not empowered to put into effect the so-called Point System and revoked its action in suspending Harbin's license.
The Department apparently concedes that it is not expressly empowered by statute to adopt the 'Point System', but contends that such authority is included in the broad power to refuse, suspend or revoke a driver's license given it by Act No. 603 of the Act of April 4, 1930, 36 St. at L. 1057, which with certain amendments is now incorporated in Chapter 2 of Title 46 of the 1952 Code. We had occasion in the recent case of Herndon v. South Carolina State Highway Department, S. C., 85 S.E.2d 287, to discuss and review this legislation. It was there pointed out that for some causes the suspension of a driver's license is made mandatory, while under certain other circumstances the question of suspension or revocation is left to the discretion of the Department, subject to the right of appeal to the Circuit Court.
The 1930 Act was the first comprehensive legislation in this State requiring a license to drive a motor vehicle and regulating the issuance, suspension and revocation of such licenses. Section 9 authorizes the Department to conduct an examination as to the qualifications of any person applying for a driver's license, which shall include such tests as the Department may prescribe. Section 19 authorizes the Department to refuse a license 'to any person for any cause satisfactory to said Department.' Under the terms of Section 9, the Department, 'for cause satisfactory' to it, is empowered to suspend or revoke a driver's license for a period of not more than one year. Any person denied a license or whose license has been suspended or revoked is given the right to appeal to a Circuit Judge whose decision is final.
Section 16 requires the Highway Department to revoke for a period of one year the license of any person convicted of (a) 'manslaughter, resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle'; (b) 'any crime constituting a felony in the commission of which a motor vehicle is used'; or (c) 'three charges of reckless driving under the laws of this State all within a period of twelve months from the time of the first conviction.' Revocation under any of the foregoing circumstances is mandatory. This section then provides that the Department may conduct an investigation and hold a hearing to determine whether a license shall be suspended or revoked upon receiving a verified complaint (a) that a licensee is afflicted with such mental or physical infirmity or disability as would justify the refusal of a driver's license; (b) that he has through the negligent operation of a motor vehicle caused death or injury to any person, or serious damage to property; or (c) that he is an habitual reckless, negligent or incompetent driver of any motor vehicle. After providing the method for holding such hearing, it is stated:
'If the findings are to the effect that the person referred to therein is incompetent or is unfit to operate a motor vehicle upon any grounds upon which license might be refused, as stated in this Act, the Highway Department upon a review of such findings shall have authority to forthwith revoke the license of such person, or if the findings are to the effect that the person therein referred to has by reason of negligence or reckless driving endangered life, limb, or property or has thereby caused loss of life or injury to person or property, the Highway Department upon a review of such findings shall have power to suspend the license of such person for a period not exceeding six months, or may revoke such license, and in either event shall require that such license issued to such person be surrendered to the Motor Vehicle Division.'
Section 28 is as follows:
'The Highway Department is hereby authorized and empowered to promulgate rules and regulations for the administration and enforcement of this Act and all such rules and regulations not inconsistent with this Act shall have the full force and effect of law.'
By reference to Chapter 2, Title 46 of the 1952 Code, it will be seen that in the codification of the 1930 Act, certain changes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coastal Conservation v. Dept. of Health
...S.E.2d 415, 416-417 (1980); Heyward v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 240 S.C. 347, 355, 126 S.E.2d 15, 19-20 (1962); S.C. State Highway Dep't v. Harbin, 226 S.C. 585, 594, 86 S.E.2d 466, 470 (1955). In McNickel's, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 331 S.C. 629, 634, 503 S.E.2d 723, 725 (1998), the South Ca......
-
Gwynette v. Myers
...to be governed or lays down a well defined and intelligent principle to which such agency must conform. South Carolina State Highway Department v. Harbin, 226 S.C. 585, 86 S.E.2d 466. The question as to whether the statute under consideration establishes an adequate standard to govern the D......
-
Found v. S.C. Dep't of Transp. & John V. Walsh
...governmental agencies...." (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. S.C. State Highway Dep't v. Harbin , 226 S.C. 585, 597–98, 86 S.E.2d 466, 472 (1955)(recognizing that "under its police power [the General Assembly] has full authority in the interest of public......
-
State v. Price
...highways is a privilege, rather than a right.6 State v. Collins, 253 S.C. 358, 170 S.E.2d 667 (1969). See also S.C. State Hwy. Dept. v. Harbin, 226 S.C. 585, 86 S.E.2d 466 (1955) (recognizing that Legislature has authority to prescribe the conditions under which the privilege to operate a m......