THE /i RNEW GENEKAL 

OF TEXAS 

Honorable Ned Granger Opinion No. M-l 145 

County Attorney 

Travis County Courthouse Re: Driver Age Requirements 

Austin, Texas 78701 for Transportation Enterprises, 

Inc., under Article 66874 

Dear Mr. Granger: v. c. s. 

You request our opinion on the following: 

“1. Are drivers of buses utilized in a local shuttle bus operation 

conducted by Transportation Enterprises, Inc., pursuant to a contract 

entered into by and between the University of Texas Board of Regents and 

the company furnishing the shuttle bus service classified as operators of 

a ‘public or common carrier’ as those classifications are used in 

Art. 66874 Section 5, V.T.A. S. 1 

“2. If the answer to (1) above is in the negative, then must the 

drivers of such buses have reached twenty-one years of age to qualify as 

lawful operators of such buses under any other applicable statute?” 

The facts in this case are: 

“The shuttle bus services are presently being rendered pursuant to 

a contract entered into by and between the University of Texas Board of 

Regents and Transportation Enterprises, Inc. 

“A contract requires Transportation Enterprises, Inc., to transport 

only students, faculty, and staff of th,e University of Texas at Austin, and 

dependents of students enrolled in the University of Texas at Austin. 

“Transportation Enterprises, Inc., is compensated only by the University of Texas predicated upon mi,les operated and not upon the number of 

persons transported. No individual fares or tickets are sold. 

-5577-. 
Honorable Ned Granger, Page 2 (M-1145) 

1, 

. . . 

“The contract entered into by and between the University of Texas 

Board of Regents and Transportation Enterprises, Inc., initially required 

drivers to be at least twenty-one years of age. 

“By modification of the contract, entered between the University 

of Texas Board of Regents an,d Transportation Enterprises, Inc., the age 

requirement of drivers was reduced to eighteen years.” 

You have also stated that Transportation, Enterprises, Inc., operates 

exclusively within the city limits and s:lburbs of the City of Austin. 

We note that Section 5 (a) of Article 6687b, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, 

permits seventeen year old drivers of school children’s buses and conclude 

that the Legislature has taken due regard for the safety aspects of such 

drivers in passing all of the provi.sions in Section 5 of Article 668733. 

The only Texas opinions found dealing with an analogous police power 

statute1 are in Cedziwoda v. Crane--Langley Funeral Chapel, 273 S. W. 2d 

455 (Tex. Civ. App., 1954), rev”d on other grounds, loo ‘I’ex. 99, 283 

S. W. 2d 217 (1955). In that case the Court of Civil Appeals held that an 

ambulance was not a public carrier on the ground that: 

“Where one. . . does not hold himself out as ready to 

carry all persons who m,ay choose to employ him, but 

agrees,y way of special undertaking, to transport 

persons for hire. . . he is not a common carrier, but 

is a special or private carrier. Such is the test applied 

in Texas ~ ” [Emphasis added. ] 

In the Supreme Court’s opinion reversing the Court of Civil Appeals on 

other grounds, Judge Calvert in his dissent stated: 

“Having decided to reverse and remand the case on the 

theory expressed in the opinion the majority did not 

1 Article 6701b, V. C. S. 

-5578- 
Honorable Ned Granger, Page 3 (M-1149 

reach plaintiff’s second point. It is that defendant is 

a public carrier under the provisions of Sec. 2 of 

Art. 6701b and therefore does not enjoy the exemption 

provided in Sec. 1. Since this matter is not discussed 

by the majority I see no need to dwell on it at length. 

Suffice it to say that in my opinion the term ‘public 

carrier’ as used in Sec. 2 of Article 6701b is synonymous with the term ‘common carrier’ and does not 

embrace motor vehicles which are operating under 

private or individual contracts, of hire. ” 

It appears that passenger transportation, regardless of mode, will be 

classified as those of a common carrier only if the service is available 

to all members of the public who request it. Transportation Enterprises’ 

transportation services are limited, according to your letter, to students, 

students’ dependents, faculty and staff of the University of Texas at Austin. 

Therefore, it is our opinion that Transportation Enterprises’ passenger 

transportation pursuant to its contract with the University of Texas cannot 

be classified as those of a common carrier under Section 5 (b) of Article 

668713, which prohibits drivers under twenty-one from operating common 

carrier vehicles. 

In reply to your second question, we know of no other statute which 

would require private or special carriers’ drivers to be twenty-one years 

or older. 

We expressly do not pass on the tort liability standard of care for 

Transportation Enterprises, Inc., or any si,mi.lar passenger transportation 

service. 

SUMMARY 

Passenger transportation by a carrier not holding out 

its services to all members of the public is not a common 

carrier as that term is used in Section 5 (b), Article 6687b, 

V. C. S., and the drivers of the vehicles may be less than 

twenty-one years old. 
Honorable Ned Granger, Page 4 (M-1145) 

Prepared by James H. Cowden 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman 

W. Dyer Moore, Jr. 

Ralph Rash 

Gordon Cass 

John Reeves 

SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

-5580-