Defendants appealed the trial judge’s decision sustaining Defendant Pesce’s violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (obedience to devices) and Defendant PGT Trucking’s violation of § 31-25-30 (axle restriction on the Pawtucket River Bridge and Sakonnet River Bridge).  Defendant PGT Trucking argued that it was not a proper party defendant to the violation of § 31-25-30 because there was no evidence that PGT Trucking “operated” the vehicle in question.  The Panel reviewed the statute’s text which defined “carrier” as “any company … who furthers their commercial or private enterprise by use of the vehicle” that crosses the Pawtucket River Bridge.  The Panel held that PGT Trucking was furthering its commercial enterprise by use of the tractor-trailer that Defendant Pesce operated over the Pawtucket River Bridge.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.