## Y GENERAL

Honorable Homer Garrison, Jr. Opinion No. C-4%4 Director Texas Department of Public Re: Whether the amendment of ~;a;;;; Article 6687b V.C.‘S by

- No. Austin Station House Bill 154 of thl’59th Austin, Texas Legislature exempts the operators of passenger automobiles,being used for commercialpurposes, from obtaining a commerDear Colonel Garrison: clal operator’s license. August 16, 1965

,Wehave receivedyour letter In which you ask for an opinion’

pertaining to,HouseBill 154 of the 59th Legislature, Regular Session, which amends Section- 3(4a),of:~Ai%bik&~;6687b, Vernon’s Civil Statutes,which amenizlment Is effective August 30, 1965. You state that in many cases, regularpassenger automobiles are used for the purposes of carrying commodities for hire, for example, deliverypurposes. You ask to be advisedelfan operator of suchpassenger automobilebeing used for such commercialpurposes, is required to obtain a commercial operator’s license under said Article as amended.

Let us first consider thepertinentprovisions of the ,existingSections of Article 6687b.

Section l(n) of said Articlereads as follows: “‘CommercialOperator!,’ Every person who ,isthe driver of a,motor vehicle desIgned or used for the transportation of property, including all vehiclesused for deliverypurposes, while said vehicle is being Ised for commercial or delivery purposes. Section 2(a) of said Article reads as;follows:
“NOperson, except thosehereinafter expressly exempted, shall drive anymotor vehicle upon a highway in this State unless such person has a valid license as an

-2289-.

Honorable Homer Garrison, Jr., Page 2 .(C-484)

operator, a commercialoperator, or a 'chauffeurunder the.provisionsof this Act." ~Section3(4a) of said Articlebefore the amendment abovementioned, reads as follows:

"Aperson operating a commercialmotor vehicle, the gross weight of which does not exceed six thousand '(6,000) pounds as thatterm is defined in Article 6675a-6 of the'RevisedCivil Statutes of Texas, .operatedin themanner and bearing current farm registrationplates as provided in Article 6675ah6a of.the Revised Civil Statutes, who holds an operator's license, shallnot be,required to obtain a commerc~ial,operatorts license. Added Acts 1951, 52nd Leg., p. 251, ch. 147 8 1.'"
We see that the last statute quoted,before the above, mentioned amendment 'goesinto effect,.providesthat an ordinary operator's license Is sufficient to operate a commercialvehicle described in said Section If the vehicle does not exceed 6,000 pounds In weight and Is operated In themanner and bearing 'currentfarm registration as provided in Article 6675a-6a.
House Bill 154 amendsSection 3(4a) above ~quotedto read as follows:

"Aperson operating a truck with a manufacturer's rated carrying capacity not to exceed 2,000 pounds, which is Intended to include trucks commonly knowr'aspickup trucks,panel delivery trucks, stationwagons, and carry-all trucks,who holds an operator's license, shallnot be required to obf;(ain a commercial operator's license.

-2290- We~seefrom said~

amendment that the operator of a farm truck is no longer exempt from securing a commercial license because of the weight of themotor vehicle,but is exempt from'such license according to the carrying capacity of the motor vehicle which does not exceed 2,000 pounds. In addition, operators of other vehiclesnamed as pickup trucks,panel trucks, stationwagons, and carry-all trucks, do not require a commercial operator's licensebut only an ordinary operator's license.Honorable Homer Garrison, Jr., Page 3 (C-484)

We believe that it was the intentionof the Legislature to exempt the operator of lightmotor vehicles from securing a commercial operator's license, The first clause of the caption to House Bill 154 reads as follows:

"AnActpermitting a person holding a valid license as operator to drive certainmotor vehicles." While the amended Section 3(4a) does not use the specific words "passengervehicle"yet we believe that it was the intention of the Legislature in exempting light vehicles to Include passenger vehicles. The 'amendmentdoes use the term "station wagons and such vehicles are certainlypassenger vehicles,

In Nichols v. State, 242 S.W.2d,396 (Tex.Crim.1951) the Courtheld that an indictment charging one with driving an 'automobile"while Intoxicated supported a convictionwhen proof showed that defendant was driving a truck. The Court citesmany authoritiesholding that the term "automobile" Include8 the term 'truck."

In Combined Insurance Company !%,:%?%;ckg ); v. Ganzer, 350 S.W.2d 211

1 bl the Court stated that an automobile

. If the statute involved Is construed to require operators oftordinary automobiles to secure a commercial operator's license, then we doubt the constitutionalityof the Act for the reason that it exempts the operators of another automobile, to wit, a station wagon, and thereby discriminates against the operators of an ordinary automobile in that It requires a greater burden than that Imposed upon operators of stationwagons. Under Article 6687b, Section 19, V.C.S., an operator's license Is only $3.00 while that for commercialoperator's license is $4.50. Under Article 6687b, Section 10, the Department of Public Safety Is authorized to give examination8 for all operators and acting under the broad authority of thatprovision, the Department of Public Safety requires a stricter examination for a commercial operator's license than for an operator's license. It also seems absurd to‘say that the driver of a stationwagon used for commercialpurposes need not pay the larger fee nor take the stricter examination and yet the driver of some light automobilemust pay such high fee and take the stricter examination. It is a well settledrule that in the constructionof a statute, ambiguous language or language of doubtfulmeaning, will not be given a constructionwhich will render an act or provision arbitrary of discriminatory, futile or offensive, or unreasonable. See 53 Tex.Jur.2d, 2 l-242, Eurposeless, Sec. 164. Statutes,

-2291-. _.

Honorable Homer Garrison, Jr., Page 4 (C-484)

It is also well settled that a court will never adopt a construction that will make a statute absurd or ridiculous or one that will lead to absurd conclusionsor consequences if the language of the enactment is susceptibleof any other meaning. Ibid Page 243; Section 165.

Another well settled rule is that in case of apparent conflictbetween two acts or statutoryprovisions, both are to be given effect if reasonablypossible. Ibid Page 225, Section 157.
A court will also endeavor to interpret a statute so that It will be constitutionaland valid and will decline to adopt a construction that will destroy or nullify it, if by any reasonable construction the enactment can be sustained. Ibid Page 225, Section 158.

As stated above, we believe that the Legislature intended to exempt operators of all light vehicles from securing a commercial license and since an ordinary passenger vehicle is lighter than any of those specificallymentioned in the amended statute, and since the term '"station wagons" includespassenger vehicles,we are of the opinion thatyour question shouldbe answered in the negative.

SUMMARY The operator of a passenger automobile used for commercialpurposes who owns a valid license as an operator, is exempt under Article 6687b(3)(4a),V.C.S., as amended, from securing a commercial operator's license.
Yours very truly,
WAGGONER CARR AttorneyGeneral of Texas

HGC/fb APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman W. 0. Shultz Edward Moffett Bob Flowers Allo Crow APPROVED FOR THE ATMRNEY GENERAL BY: T. B. Wright -2292-