Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BOB WARK'S ARCO v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (02/09/83)

decided: February 9, 1983.

BOB WARK'S ARCO, INC., APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bob Wark's Auto, Inc. No. 81-10897.

COUNSEL

John M. Burns, Shralow & Newman, of Counsel: Arthur S. Karafin, for appellant.

Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Counsel, with him Ward T. Williams, Chief Counsel, and Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, for appellee.

Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 645]

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, which sustained the order of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (DOT) suspending the official auto inspection station certificate of Bob Wark's Arco, Inc.

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 646]

(Wark's) pursuant to Section 4724(a) of the Vehicle Code.*fn1 DOT suspended Wark's certificate for three months based upon the faulty inspection of a 1975 Chevrolet and for twelve months based upon the faulty inspection of a 1973 Volkswagen, the suspensions to run concurrently. After the inspection by Wark's, a state trooper had inspected each of the two cars and found defects which would have caused failure of a proper inspection.

Wark's argues that the trial judge committed reversible error by: (1) refusing to admit Wark's offered business records, (2) admitting prejudicial hearsay, (3) refusing to admit the testimony of Wark's expert witness, and (4) denying Wark's motion for a directed verdict.

Following our scope of review in this type of case,*fn2 we must reverse and remand to the trial court.

Wark's argues that the refusal to admit its offered business records was error. The records contained notations which Wark's mechanics, who testified at trial, had made immediately after their inspections of the two cars involved in this case. Because the trial court has discretion over the admission of business records, we will not disturb its decision absent a clear abuse of that discretion.*fn3 We find no such abuse here, and furthermore, because the offered records were

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 647]

    merely corroborative of the testimony of Wark's witnesses, the refusal to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.