Opinion ID: 900846
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Group of Axles

Text: [¶ 11.] Defendants argue that the term bridge does not appear in SDCL 32-22-16(3), 32-22-16.1, or 32-22-55. They ask this Court to define the term group as used in these statutes. Although we have never specifically addressed whether a person can be found in violation of a bridge weight, when the statutes in SDCL ch. 32-22 never mention the term bridge and instead use the term group, we have previously found a person in violation of SDCL ch. 32-22 for a bridge weight violation on Axles 2-7. [2] State v. Downs, 2002 SD 56, 645 N.W.2d 238. [¶ 12.] Nearly every state has a so-called bridge formula statute similar to SDCL 32-22-16.1. [3] The state bridge formula statutes derive from 23 USC § 127, which ties the receipt of federal highway funds to enforcement of vehicle weight limitations and provides a formula for calculating weight violations. 23 USC § 127. Thus, other jurisdictions have had an opportunity to address this issue. [¶ 13.] Interpreting a bridge formula statute, the Illinois Supreme Court found that the argument regarding the terms bridge and gross weight is an argument of semantic differences. People v. Conlan, 189 Ill.2d 286, 244 Ill.Dec. 350, 725 N.E.2d 1237, 1242 (2000). The Conlan court pointed out that violations charged as bridge or gross weight violations are essentially all bridge violations because they allege excessive weight, or load, over an area spanning certain consecutive axles. Id. at 1241-42. If the extreme axles on a vehicle, front and rear, are being considered, and the total weight exceeds allowable limits, a gross weight violation has occurred in the traditional sense. Id. at 1242. If, on the other hand, excessive weight exists over consecutive inner axles, then what is apparently referred to as an inner bridge violation has occurred. Id. Here, Geise had an inner bridge violation and Roland and David Clausen had traditional gross weight violations. [¶ 14.] SDCL 32-22-16.1 provides that for the purposes of § 32-22-16 the maximum gross weight on a group of two or more consecutive axles  shall be determined by a formula, commonly referred to as the bridge formula (emphasis added). It is apparent that the Legislature intended the term group to encompass a variety of axle configurations that can exist on a vehicle. This can be deduced by the Legislature's inclusion of the term gross weight in SDCL 32-22-16.1. Gross weight means total weight of the vehicle. Young, 2001 SD 76 at ¶ 6, 630 N.W.2d at 87-88 (recognizing that an overweight violation may be assessed on the total weight of the vehicle, a sum of its individual axles, or an individual axle). In calculating the total weight of a vehicle, all the axles on the vehicle would be included. Therefore, by implication, we conclude that a group of axles can encompass all the axles on a vehicle to calculate a gross weight violation (i.e. the Clausens) or a group of axles can encompass any two or more consecutive axles which constitute a weight violation (i.e. Geise). See Commonwealth v. Byers, 35 PaD & C3d 470, 474, n1, 1984 WL 2506 (Pa.Com.Pl.1984) (While the statute uses the language `two or more consecutive axles' it is apparent that this language is referring to all the axles. At least in this case all axles were used in the calculation.). [¶ 15.] Furthermore, the term bridge violation is commonly used to describe a weight violation on a group of two or more consecutive axles. Therefore, we conclude that a group of axles means a bridge of axles and vice-versa. The circuit court did not err on this question.