Honorable Hames E. Kilday 

Director Motor Transportation Division 

Railroad Commission of Texas 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-1430 

Re: Irregular motor bus operations 

We quote your letter of March 12, 1940, requesting an opinion of 

this Department, in full: 

"We wish your opinion on the following sets of facts: 

"FIRST: CHARTER TRIPS 

"At times, schools or organizations or societies or groups of 

different kinds decide to make a trip for sight-seeing or 

educational purposes, or some such purpose. 

"(a) Assuming that a number of persons within such a group contemplating such a trip, go to a regularly certificated bus line 

and procure the use of a bus for this trip - the driver being 

the bus line's driver and the transportation charges being paid 

by the several passengers who are members'of the organization, 

to the bus line on a per head basis - Does this busline which 

pays all expense of operation, have authority to engage in the 

enterprise - assuming that in making the trip, the bus disregards its certificate and goes over routes and roads not 

covered by said bus line's Certificates? 

"The operation is irregular - that is, it may never occur but 

one time and then, again, it may occur again at some unforeseeable and indefinite date. 

"(b) Does the bus line have authority to engage in the enterprise above described 

"(1) Where the bus and driver are hired at so much per day or 

so much per mile or so much for the entire trip? 

"(2) IVhere the organization, as distinguished from the members 

thereof, pay the bus line on a per head basis, per mile basis 

or a per trip basis, all expenses of operation in each instance 

being paid by the bus line? 
. . 

Honorable James E. Kilday, page 2 O-1430 

“Some of these.trips Come from withont;the State and some of 

them ape entirely intrastate. 

"Does the Railroad Commission have any duty, under the,Motor 

Bus Laws, in connection with either the inter or intra state 

movements described above? 

"SECOND: PARTY THLPS -v 

nAssuming that no society, organization or group of any kind 

is involved, but some individual interests his friends in such 

a trip, then with respect to this latter set-up, we ask your 

opinion with regard to the same questions above enumerated." 

By letter of May 29, 1940, you furnished us with the following additional information: 

"With further reference to our letter of March 12, 1940, requesting an opinion regarding chartered bus trips, you are advised that, in our o inion, the larger certificated operators 

in Texas make severa P such trips each year, using the same certificated busses that are operated over the regular routes 

authorized by their certificates." 

The operation of motor busses is governed by Article 911a, Vernon's 

Civil Statutes. 

Sec. l(c) thereof reads as follows: 

"Sec. 1 (c) The term 'Motor Bus Company' when used in this Act 

(Art. 9lla; P.C. 169Oa) means every corporation or pecsons as 

herein defined, their lessees, trustees, receivers, or trustees appointed by any court whatsoever, owning, controlling, 

operating, or managing any motor propelled passenger vehicle, 

not usually operated on or over rails, and engaged in the business of transporting 

the public highways wit R 

ersons for compensation or hire over 

in the State of Texas, whether operating over fixed routes or fixed schedules or otherwise; provided 

further that the term 'Motor Bus Company' as used in this Act 

(Art. gila; P.C. 1690a) shall not include corporations or persons, their lessees, trustees, or receivers, or trustees appointed by any court whatsoever, insofar as they own, control, 

operate, or manage motor propelled passenger vehicles operated 

wholly within the limits of any incorporated town or city and 

the suburbs thereof, whether separately incorporated or otherwise. 

Section 2 of said Act provides in part: 

"Sec. 2. All motor-bus companies, as defined herein, are hereby 

declared to be tcommon carriers' and subject.to regulation 
Honorable James E. Kilday, page 3 O-1430 

by the State of Texas, 2nd shall not operate any motor propelled passenger vehicle for the regular transportstion of 

persons as passengers for compensation or hire over any 

public highway in this State except in accordance with the 

provision.of this Act..." 

Section 4(a) thereof reads: 

"Sec. 4. (a) The Commission is hereby vested with power and 

authority, and it.is hereby made its duty to supervise and 

regulate the public service rendered by every motor bus company operating over the highways in this %;itc+, to fix or 

approve the maximum, or minimum, or maximum and minimum, 

fares, rates or charges of, and to prescribe all rules and 

regulations necessary for the government of, each motor bus 

company; to prescribe the routes, schedules, service, and 

safety of operations of each such motor bus company; to acquire 

the filing-of such annual~or other reports and of such other 

data by such motor bus .company as the Commission may deem 

necessary." 

Section 8 of said Article 911a requires an application to set forth 

certain facts including "the desires to operate" and "a proposed 

time schedule." However, we do not. believe that this was meant to 

require motor bus carriers to operate only with fixed routes and 

schedules so as to exclude the character of operations described 

in your letter. In this connection attention is drawn to Sec. 1 

(c), quoted above, saying that a person or corporation, etc., may 

be a "motor bus company" and therefore subject to regulation 

"whether operating over fixed routes or fixed schedules, or other- 

&g. " 

rle now refer to Sec. 2, providing that motor bus companies l'shall 

not operate any motor propelled passenger vehicle for the renul.ar 

transportation of persons as passengers for compensation or hire 

over any public highway in this State except in accordance with the 

provision of this Act." Citing this provision the Court of Criminal Appeals, in Hof!'man vs. State, 20 S.W. (2dj 1057, held that a 

single operation by an 'individual did not constitute him amotor 

bus carrier subject to the statute. This case was followed by the 

El Paso Court of Civil Appeals ins Commercial Credit Company vs. 

Groseclose, 66 S.W. (2d) 709. The fact that aperson who does not 

make it a business, or hold himself out as being ready or willing 

to transport passengers for compensation, occasionally does use 

his automobile, or one which he has hired, to carry someone for comPensation does not necessarily bring him within the statute as a 

common carrier. Such seems reasonable to us and is within the implication of the two cases cited above. On the other hand we do 

not believe that a person would necessarily have to establish regular schedules over certain routes before coming within the Act,, 
Honorable James E. Kilday, page 4 O-1430 

We do not think the word t5-egular1t was used in that sense in Sec.2, 

particularly when we remember the language used in Sec. 1 (c). 

From the opinion of Judge Cobb, in Woolf vs. Del Rio Motor Transport Company, 27 S.W. (2d) 874, wequote: 

"The testimony showed the defendents operated outside of the 

city of Del Rio and in every direction that they had a chance; 

as far as three miles east of the city of Del Rio, and twelve 

miles west of said city to Devil's River; that they operated 

over the public highways within this state and charged compensation for carrying passengers; that they held themselves out 

to take passengers anywhere...... 

"It is clear from a reading of the amendment that it was the 

intention of the Legislature to make the Motor Bus Law apply 

to all operators'who use the public highways for transporting 

persons for hire, and it is not necessary that the transportation be between certain points or that the person transporting 

ersons for hire shall be engaged regularly in the business. 

!A is brought within its provisions the defendants, even though 

they did not operate regularly but only indiscriminately.n 

We note that the busses concerned are the same certificated busses 

that the carrier uses over the regular routes authorieed by its 

certificate. We understand also that such vehicles are not adapted 

to private use but are specially constructed for uee in the carrier 

business. In our opinion, it makes no difference that the particular type of operation which we are now considering is irregular 

as to routes and has no schedules. It is a part of the carrier's 

operations as such and subject to regulation by the Railroad 

Commission under any and all of the fact situations submitted in 

your several questions. Such being true, it follows also that a 

carrier holding a certificate authorizing operation upon certain 

routes only cannot lawfully operate such busses regularly or on 

such charter trips, over other and different routes without securing 

an enlargement of the certificate to authorize the same. 

This opinion is written upon the assumption that the motor bus company retains control of.the bus and its operation and is not intended to touch upon a situation where a bona fide lease is made and 

full control of the bus surrendered. 

Yours very truly 

APPROVED JUNE 7, 1940 

GROVER SELLERS 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

BY 

Glenn R. Lewis 

Assistant 

GRL:kd;ml