Appeals Panel
12/09/2009
City of Providence v. Arthur Toegemann, C.A. No. T09-0114 (December 9, 2009) School Bus Violations
School Bus Violations
Defendant appealed the decision of the hearing judge denying a motion for relief from judgment for the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-20-12 (stopping for school bus required). Section 31-20-12 requires that a motorist stop for a school bus transporting children while flashing lights are engaged, but § 31-20-13 allows the motorist to pass when the motorist and bus are traveling in opposite lanes and separated by a median. Defendant argued that he suffered prejudice because the two statutes are in conflict with each other. The Panel held that the two statutes anticipate each other and operate to give effect to the Legislature’s intent to reduce highway fatalities through increased caution when operating motor vehicles in the vicinity of school buses. The Panel held that the Defendant suffered no prejudice and sustained the charged violation.
City of Providence v. Arthur Toegemann, C.A. No. T09-0114 (December 9, 2009).pdf
District Court
12/09/2009
City of Providence v. Arthur Toegemann, C.A. No. T09-0114 (December 9, 2009) School Bus Violations
School Bus Violations
Defendant appealed the decision of the hearing judge denying a motion for relief from judgment for the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-20-12 (stopping for school bus required). Defendant argued that the trial judge’s decision was an abuse of discretion because he was charged with violating a traffic control device which did not comply with the Federal “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices” (MUTCD). The Panel noted that the Rhode Island State Traffic Commission adopted in its entirety the MUTCD. The Panel explained, however, that the MUTCD discusses only two traffic control devices relating to school busses —“turn ahead” and “stop ahead” signs — that should be installed in advance of places where school busses stop. The Panel held that no traffic control device enumerated in the MUTCD was at issue in this case, because the Defendant was charged appropriately under § 31-20-12, which states that a motorists shall stop before reaching a bus when the bus’s red flashing lights are operational. The Panel also held that because the Defendant did not raise this argument at trial, it fails due to the raise or waive rule. Accordingly, the Panel held that the trial judge’s decision was not an abuse of discretion, denied the motion for relief from judgment, and sustained the violation.
City of Providence v. Arthur Toegemann, C.A. No. T09-0114 (December 9, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
12/09/2009
City of Providence v. Arthur Toegemann, C.A. No. T09-0114 (December 9, 2009) Newly Discovered Evidence
Newly Discovered Evidence
Defendant appealed the decision of the hearing judge denying a motion for relief from judgment for a violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-20-12 (stopping for school bus required). Sections 31-20-12 and 31-20-13, read together, require that a motorist stop for a school bus transporting children while flashing lights are engaged unless the motorist and bus are traveling in opposite lanes and separated by a median. In support of the motion for relief from judgment the defendant argued that he had newly discovered evidence that the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) planned to place a median strip at the site of the violation. He admitted, however, that the median was not in place at the time he was cited. The Panel explained that Rule 20(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the Traffic Tribunal permits relief based on newly discovered evidence only if the evidence is material such that it would probably change the outcome of the proceedings and if the evidence cited was not discoverable at the time of the original hearing by the exercise of ordinary diligence. The Panel held that the evidence the defendant offered was immaterial because at the time he was cited the median strip was not in place. Therefore, it would make no difference whether the DOT had planned to construct a median in the future because the defendant was not exempt from the obligations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-12 at the time of the violation. Additionally, the defendant failed to meet his burden that the “newly discovered” evidence was not available at the time of the original hearing. Accordingly, the Panel denied the motion for relief of judgment and sustained the violation against the defendant.
City of Providence v. Arthur Toegemann, C.A. No. T09-0114 (December 9, 2009).pdf