Rule 350 Appeals from Civil Traffic Violations

75 Pa.C.S. § 3369 established a program to provide for automated speed enforcement systems in active work zones on certain highways under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Similarly, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3345.1 provides for automated side stop signal arm enforcement systems to identify the owners of vehicles failing to stop for a school bus with flashing red lights and an activated side stop signal arm, as well as for the imposition of civil fines upon those found in violation. This rule was adopted to address the statutory provisions permitting a de novo appeal to a magisterial district court from a determination of a hearing officer following an administrative hearing to contest an alleged violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3369(c) or 75 Pa.C.S. § 3345.1(a.1)(1). Because these actions are de novo appeals, they shall proceed as any other civil action commenced in a magisterial district court except as provided by this rule.

Insofar as other procedures under these rules may be applicable, the appellant shall be deemed the ‘‘defendant’’ and the appellee shall be deemed the ‘‘plaintiff.’’

The initiating document in an appeal filed pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 350 is the notice of appeal, which shall be used in lieu of a complaint. See also Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 206.1 pertaining to an application or praecipe to waive fees and costs (in forma pauperis) if the appellant is without the financial resources to cover the cost of litigation.

Photographs, videos, vehicle titles, police reports, and records of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation were added to the existing business record exceptions in Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 321 because they are the proofs most likely to be used to support the permitted defenses to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3369(c) and 75 Pa.C.S. § 3345.1(a.1)(1).

The appellant shall pay civil fines incurred pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3369(e) or 75 Pa.C.S. § 3345.1(c) to the appellee and not to the magisterial district court. See Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 323, cmt. (clarifying that payments are made to the prevailing party and not the magisterial district court). If the magisterial district judge enters judgment in favor of the appellant, i.e., the vehicle owner, the appellant is entitled to recover taxable costs from the appellee. See Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 206(b) (‘‘The prevailing party in magisterial district court proceedings shall be entitled to recover taxable costs from the unsuccessful party. Such costs shall consist of all filing, personal service, witness, and execution costs authorized by Act of Assembly or general rule and paid by the prevailing party.’’) Procedures for enforcement of judgments, including judgments in favor of the appellant for taxable costs from the appellee, are set forth in Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 401 et seq. See 75 Pa.C.S. § § 3345.1(i.4)(4) and 3369(j)(4) for limits on the judgment.

See Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 1001 et seq. for procedures to appeal a judgment rendered by a magisterial district judge or to file a praecipe for a writ of certiorari in civil actions, including actions brought pursuant to this rule.