RI District Court and Traffic Tribunal Case Law

This website is in no way affiliated with, sponsored by, or supported by the Rhode Island Judiciary, the Rhode Island District Court, or Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal.

Home » Case Files

Bert Salva v. RITT, A.A. No. 10-27 (April 12, 2010)

Bert Salva v. RITT, A.A. No. 10-27 (April 12, 2010).pdf
District Court
04/12/2010
Bert Salva v. RITT, A.A. No. 10-27 Inferences

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (obedience to devices). The officer testified that he observed the defendant operate an eighteen-wheel tractor-trailer over the Pawtucket River bridge in violation of the axle restriction but did not observe the defendant drive past the traffic sign located at exit 30. Defendant claimed that the judge improperly inferred that he had operated the vehicle past the traffic sign at exit 30 because the officer only testified that he had observed the defendant cross over the Pawtucket River bridge. The Court held that it was reasonable to infer that a tractor trailer traveling from a northerly direction through the state would continue to operate solely on 95 South and, therefore, pass the traffic device located at exit 30. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. Bert Salva v. RITT, A.A. No. 10-27 (April 12, 2010).pdf

District Court
04/12/2010
Bert Salva v. RITT, A.A. No. 10-27 Obedience to Devices

Obedience to Devices

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (obedience to devices). The officer testified that he observed the defendant operate an eighteen wheel tractor trailer over the Pawtucket River bridge in violation of the axle restriction. The officer inferred that the defendant passed the traffic device sign posted at exit 30 that informed drivers of the axle restriction on the bridge because the defendant was traveling southbound on Route 95. Defendant claimed that there was no evidence on record sufficient to sustain the charged violation because the officer only testified that he had inferred that the defendant had passed the traffic device, but did not actually observe the defendant pass the traffic sign at exit 30. The Court held that the state had met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant violated § 31-13-4 because it was “highly probable” that the defendant passed the traffic sign at exit 30 where he operated the vehicle southbound on Route 95. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. Bert Salva v. RITT, A.A. No. 10-27 (April 12, 2010).pdf