State v. Dried Milk Products Co-op

• Decision Date: 03 April 1962
• Docket Number: CO-OP
• Citation: 114 N.W.2d 412,16 Wis.2d 357
• Parties: STATE of Wisconsin, Respondent, v. DRIED MILK PRODUCTS(Dairy Maid Products, Inc.), Appellant.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 412

114 N.W.2d 412

16 Wis.2d 357

STATE of Wisconsin, Respondent, v. DRIED MILK PRODUCTS CO-OP. (Dairy Maid Products, Inc.), Appellant.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 3, 1962.

This is an appeal from a judgment adjudging the defendant Dried Milk Products Co-op., the corporate owner of a tractor-trailer combination, guilty of violating sec. 348.15(2)(c), Stats., and imposing a fine of $401.20 plus costs. The case was tried on a stipulation of facts which set forth that on November 21st, 1960, the defendant's employee-driver placed a lawful total load of dairy products on defendant's trailer at Portage, Wisconsin, destined for Villa Park, Illinois, but so distributed the load upon the vehicle as to unknowingly overload axles three and four of the trailer. The driver, for the purpose of checking the weight, drove to the state scale a few miles south of Portage, Wisconsin, which was the nearest scale open and available, and in so doing used State Trunk Highway 51-16, a class 'A' public highway. The driver had been advised by the defendant that he should at all times comply with the law regulating the limitation of weights and the operation of vehicles under his control. Upon the completion of the weighing at the state scale, a citation was issued for operating an overloaded vehicle on Highway 51-16 from the city of Portage to the state scale.

Rogers & Owens, Portage, for appellant.

John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., William A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, David H. Bennett, Dist. Atty., Portage, for respondent.

HALLOWS, Justice.

In this case, the owner of the vehicle, who was also the employer of its driver, was found guilty of the violation of sec. 348.15(2)(c), Stats., which provides, in part, no person shall operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles on a class 'A' highway which does not comply with certain weight limitations. This section is part of a welfare statute which generally creates a crime malum prohibitum for the doing of an act without requirement of intent. Two other sections, namely, secs. 348.02(3) ¹ and 348.20(1), ² must be considered in arriving at a construction of the statutory language.

The appellant contends that although sec. 348.15(2), Stats., provides absolute liability on the operator or driver of the vehicle, the legislature did not intend and these sections of the statutes cannot be construed to impose such vicarious liability upon the owner of the truck. More specifically, the appellant argues an owner cannot be found guilty of violating the weight limitations applicable to its tractor-trailer truck unless it is proven the owner or employer knowingly caused or required or permitted the operation of the vehicle in violation of the statute. Prior to 1959, the word 'knowingly' was a requirement in sec. 348.20(1), Stats., on the part of the owner or the employer so far as permitting the operation of a vehicle upon a highway contrary to the weight restrictions. But by Ch. 156 of the Laws of 1959, the word 'knowingly' was removed from that section. An analysis of the sections involved leads to the conclusion sec. 348.02(3), Stats., which is a general section applying to ch. 348, Stats., modifies sec. 348.15(2). Reading the two sections together, sec. 348.02(3) enlarges the definition of the word 'operate' in sec. 348.15(2), so that an owner of a vehicle who causes or permits a vehicle to be operated on a highway is guilty of a violation of the chapter the same as though the owner had been the driver of the vehicle. We do not believe it is a fair construction of sec. 348.02(3), as contended by the appellant, to say the language of this section requires the owner to have knowledge of the violation and, having that knowledge, causes or permits his vehicle to be operated on the highway.

Moreover, by sec. 348.20(1), Stats., which sets forth the policy in prosecuting weight violations, both the owner and the employer of the driver of the tractor portion of a vehicle combination are liable for weight violations. The appellant would read back into this section the word 'knowingly' by necessary implication founded upon general common-law rules that criminal violations require an intent and that criminal laws are to be strictly construed. In view of the legislative history ³ of this section, such construction is not now permissible. ⁴ Keeping in mind that welfare statutes are mala prohibita and an exception to the general common-law rule that an intent of some blameworthiness is required, we must construe the statute in the light of the legislative history when the legislative intent is appropriately expressed in statutory language and such construction can be given without violence to the rule that criminal laws are to be strictly construed against the government.

Without such an amendment and legislative history, we would be faced with only the words of the statutes, which are primary evidence of legislative intent, and give rise to the question of whether the absence of verbs or modifiers clearly denoting a required state of mind may be taken as a sufficient basis upon which to infer legislative intention to create criminal liability without specific intent. The words of the sections, 'cause,' 'require,' 'permit,' while inherently carrying the requirement of some awareness, do not in the sections involved, imply more than an awareness of the vehicle operating on the highways pursuant to the licenses and within the scope of the owner's or employer's business. If the vehicle had been stolen and driven by a thief, no liability would have attached to the defendant. But a corporation acts of necessity through its agents whose acts within the scope of the agent's authority are the acts of the corporation, both for the imposition of civil and criminal liability. Vulcan Last Company v. State (1928), 194 Wis. 636, 217 N.W. 412.

Appellant also contends he is not a party to the crime under sec. 939.05 of the Criminal Code. This section has no application to ch. 348, because the latter section is a specific statute creating a specific crime and defining those persons within its contemplation and is not controlled by the general section 939.05.

The appellant further contends the construction of absolute criminal liability upon the owner and employer, who has no actual knowledge of the violation is unconstitutional. We do not agree. There are many instances in which this court has sustained the truck-weight law against constitutional attack. State v. Naczas (1959), 8 Wis.2d 187, 98 N.W.2d 444; State v. Seraphine (1954), 266 Wis. 118, 62 N.W.2d 403; State v. Stang Tank Line (1953), 264 Wis. 570, 59 N.W.2d 800. The appellant relies, for his proposition, on People v. Vadakin (1953), 204 Misc. 904, 125 N.Y.S.2d 25, but the contrary view upholding the constitutionality of the weight statute was held in People v. Rodenbach (1953), 204 Misc. 905, 126 N.Y.S.2d 295, wherein the court stated the reasoning of Vadakin was persuasive but not binding upon it. The Rodenbach Case was affirmed by the New York Court...