finding words should be given “their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute’s operation.”
How later courts described this case
- finding words should be given “their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute’s operation.”
- stating courts should give words their ordinary meaning and should not resort to forced construction to limit or expand a statute
- holding “language must be construed in light of the intended purpose of the statute.”
- reciting "the statutory construction rule that a court must follow a specific provision over general language"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice PLEICONES,
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s decision which affirms the Court of Appeals’ decision reversing the citations issued to the respondents. I write separately, however, because I believe S.C.Code Ann. § 56-5-4140(1)(b) is irrelevant to our decision as the sanitation truck did not have tandem axles. The relevant provision, in my view, is § 56-5-4140(2)(a). The dump truck was of a “special type,” and had three axles. *357 Accordingly, its maximum weight was 66,000 pounds pursuant to that section. 7
Moreover, I disagree with the majority that a vehicle can ever exceed 80,000 pounds under the statute. In my view, (2)(a) allows 20,000 pounds per axle up to the maximum allowed under either (l)(a) or (l)(b), plus scale tolerances. The ten percent tolerance permitted under (l)(a) is capped at 75,185, and no scale tolerance is permitted under (l)(b), which sets a maximum weight of 80,000 pounds regardless of the number of tandem axles. I therefore disagree with the majority that a vehicle could lawfully weigh 88,000 pounds under (l)(b).
. 3 axles x 20,000 pounds + 6,000 pounds (10% scale tolerance).