In Wagner, a CDL driver appealed a one-year CDL disqualification after accepting Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition ("ARD") for a DUI charge received while operating his personal vehicle. Wagner's appeal was based on the fact that he was not operating a commercial vehicle at the time of the offense and thus not a commercial driver.

The trial court agreed with Wagner and held that the language "where a person was a commercial driver at the time the violation occurred" (in Section 1611(a)(1)) was distinguishable from the language "using a motor vehicle" (in Section 1611(e)). The trial court also found that Section 1611(e) clearly stated that the section applied where a CDL holder was using any motor vehicle at the time of the violation. The Court did note that Section 1611(a) was unclear as to whether the section applied to a CDL holder driving any vehicle or to a CDL holder driving a commercial vehicle. The trial court resolved the ambiguity by concluding that if the General Assembly wanted the Section to apply to a CDL holder operating any vehicle, the General Assembly would have used language similar to that found in Section 1611(e).

The Department appealed, asserting that the trial court erroneously interpreted Section 1611(a)(1). The PA Commonwealth Court, in a matter of first impression, held that:

(1) the statute governing one-year disqualification mandates that Department shall disqualify any person from operating commercial motor vehicle if that person has been convicted of DUI offense; and(2) the statute governing one-year disqualification applied even though holder committed offense while operating personal vehicle.

The Commonwealth Court reasoned that the Vehicle Code explains that Chapter 16 was intended to be a remedial law that was to be liberally construed to promote the public health, safety and welfare. To the extent that Chapter 16 conflicted with other driver licensing provisions, Chapter 16 prevails and where it is silent, the general driver licensing provisions apply. In addition, the Commonwealth Court held that Chapter 16 was enacted in an effort to reduce or prevent commercial motor vehicle accidents by disqualifying commercial drivers who committed certain serious traffic violations or other specified offenses. 

What It Means to You

Moving forward, carriers will need to implement changes to their training and on-going driver education, else risk significant exposure to risk of personnel losses. Additionally, carriers should factor this new rule into the actual employment screening process. This will also likely have implications on personnel file maintenance and the discovery process in the event of litigation. The attorneys at Cipriani & Werner are always available to answer your questions on changes to Pennsylvania law.