The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s sanction of a fine pursuant to R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-25-27 (weight restrictions on state highways). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred in finding that the signs placed on the highway to notify motorists of the weight limit were sufficient to put the Defendant on notice of the limit. Here, the Defendant asserted that he did not see the signs, but the Trooper testified that there were eight signs that the Defendant passed warning of the bridge’s weight limit. The Panel held that the Defendant did have adequate notice of the weight restrictions based on the Trooper’s testimony that there were eight signs on the highway leading up to the bridge. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the violation.