State v. Sweat
| Decision Date | 25 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 26763.,26763. |
| Citation | 688 S.E.2d 569,386 S.C. 339 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Petitioner, v. Reginald Craig SWEAT, Respondent. and The State, Petitioner, v. Arthur Bryant, III, Respondent. |
Richard Pearce and Benjamin Moore, both of Aiken, for respondents.
R. Hawthorne Barrett and Danny C. Crowe, both of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae Municipal Association of South Carolina.
This Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in State v. Sweat, 379 S.C. 367, 665 S.E.2d 645 (Ct.App.2008), in which the Court of Appeals interpreted section 56-5-4140 of the South Carolina Code,1 a statute regulating the maximum gross weight of vehicles driven on South Carolina roads. We affirm as modified.
The parties agreed to the relevant facts underlying this case. On February 14, 2006, Reginald Craig Sweat, a sanitation truck driver for the City of Aiken, was stopped and cited by a State Transport Police (STP) officer for exceeding the allowable gross weight for the three-axle sanitation truck he was driving. According to the citation, the vehicle weighed 57,100 pounds, which the officer claimed exceeded the allowable gross weight of 50,600 pounds. The 50,600 pound amount was calculated based on an initial three-axle amount of 46,000 pounds plus a ten percent scale tolerance of 4,600.
On April 10, 2006, a different STP officer stopped and cited Arthur Bryant, III, another driver for the City of Aiken, for driving the same sanitation truck in excess of the allowable gross vehicle weight. The citation indicates the vehicle weighed 56,900 pounds, which exceeded the allowable gross weight of 50,600.
At the time the STP issued the citations, section 56-5-4140 provided in relevant part:
(1)(a) The gross weight of a vehicle or combination of vehicles, operated or moved upon any interstate, highway or section of highway shall not exceed:
(1) Single-unit vehicle with two axles
................. 35,000 lbs
(2) Single-unit vehicle with three axles
.................. 46,000 lbs
(3) Single-unit vehicle with four axles
................... 63,500 lbs
Except, on the interstate, vehicles must meet axle spacing requirements and corresponding maximum overall gross weights, not to exceed 63,500 lbs., in accordance with the table in (b) plus tolerances.
(4) Single unit vehicle with five or more
axles ....... 65,000 lbs
Except, on the interstate, vehicles must meet axle spacing requirements and corresponding maximum overall gross weights, not to exceed 65,000 lbs., in accordance with the table in (b) plus tolerances.
(5) Combination of vehicles with three axles
......... 50,000 lbs
(6) Combination of vehicles with four axles
.......... 65,000 lbs
(7) Combination of vehicles with five or
more axles ... 73,280 lbs.
The gross weight imposed upon any highway or section of highway other than the interstate by two or more consecutive axles in tandem articulated from a common attachment to the vehicle and spaced not less than forty inches nor more than ninety-six inches apart shall not exceed thirty-six thousand pounds, and no one axle of any such group of two or more consecutive axles shall exceed the load permitted for a single axle. The load imposed on the highway by two consecutive axles, individually attached to the vehicle and spaced not less than forty inches nor more than ninety-six inches apart, shall not exceed thirty-six thousand pounds and no one axle of any such group of two consecutive axles shall exceed the load permitted for a single axle.
The ten percent enforcement tolerance specified in Section 56-5-4160 applies to the vehicle weight limits specified in this section except, the gross weight on a single axle operated on the interstate may not exceed 20,000 pounds, including all enforcement tolerances; the gross weight on a tandem axle operated on the interstate may not exceed 35,200 pounds, including all enforcement tolerances; and the overall gross weight for vehicles operated on the interstate may not exceed 75,185 pounds, including all enforcement tolerances except as provided in (b).
(b) Vehicles with an overall maximum gross weight in excess of 75,185 pounds may operate upon any highway or section of highway in the Interstate System up to an overall maximum of 80,000 pounds in accordance with the following:
The weight imposed upon the highway by any group of two or more consecutive axles may not, unless specially permitted by the Department of Public Safety exceed an overall gross weight produced by the application of the following formula:
W = 500 (LN/N-1 + 12N + 36)
In the formula W equals overall gross weight on any group of two or more consecutive axles to the nearest 500 pounds, L equals distance in feet between the extreme of any group of two or more consecutive axles, and N equals number of axles in the group under consideration.
As an exception, two consecutive sets of tandem axles may carry a gross load of 68,000 pounds if the overall distance between the first and last axles of the consecutive sets of tandem axles is 36 feet or more. The formula is expressed by the following table:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crenshaw v. Erskine Coll.
...effect to specific terms over any general language. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 203(c) (1979) ; see also State v. Sweat , 386 S.C. 339, 347, 688 S.E.2d 569, 573 (2010) (reciting "the statutory construction rule that a court must follow a specific provision over general language"). T......
-
Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co.
...State v. Sweat , 379 S.C. 367, 377, 382, 665 S.E.2d 645, 651, 654 (Ct. App. 2008), aff'd as modified on other grounds , 386 S.C. 339, 688 S.E.2d 569 (2010) )); S.C. Dep't of Consumer Affs. v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc. , 345 S.C. 251, 255–56, 547 S.E.2d 881, 883–84 (Ct. App. 2001) ("The canon of con......
-
Greenville Cnty. Republican Party Exec. Comm. v. State
...not allow parties that choose to use the primary method of nomination to operate closed primaries. See State of South Carolina v. Sweat, 386 S.C. 339, 350, 688 S.E.2d 569, 575 (2010) (“All rules of statutory construction are subservient to the one that the legislative intent must prevail if......
-
State v. Heyward
...in the language used, and that language must be construed in light of the intended purpose of the statute." State v. Sweat , 386 S.C. 339, 350, 688 S.E.2d 569, 575 (2010) (quoting Broadhurst v. City of Myrtle Beach Election Comm'n , 342 S.C. 373, 380, 537 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) ). "A statut......