Court Opinion

ID: 9448411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:34:55.667386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:25.069074
License: Public Domain

WHITAKER, Judge
(concurring in the dissent).
I am in complete agreement with this dissent, and I wish to supplement it with this observation.
The majority correctly says the so-called liquidated damages provision is in fact a provision for a penalty. It is a penalty for the violation of a law. It is civil in nature, it is true, but it is, at the same time, tantamount to a fine for the violation of a law. This being true, I do not think the regulation of a department can set aside the presumption of innocence and east upon the accused the burden of proving that it is not guilty.
If this regulation is invalid, there is no proof whatever of plaintiff’s guilt. The money it paid was not in satisfaction of a penalty validly assessed, but, as Judge LARAMORE says, to “buy his peace”, to avoid, at the least expense, the unjustified demand made upon it.