Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-26-5 (duty in accident resulting in damage in highway fixtures). The Court noted that the Appeals Panel lacked the authority to assess witness credibility or to substitute its judgment for that of the hearing judge concerning the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.  Therefore, the District Court held that its role was doubly limited and could not substitute its judgment for that of the Appeals Panel or trial judge.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.