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 commercial purposes, 

from obtaining a commerDear Colonel Garrison: clal operator’s license. 

August 16, 1965 

,We have received your letter In which you ask for an 

opinion’ pertaining to,House Bill 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, regular passenger 

automobiles are used for the purposes of carrying commodities 

for hire, for example, delivery purposes. You ask to be advised elf an operator of such passenger automobile being used 

for such commercial purposes, is required to obtain a commercial operator’s license under said Article as amended. 

Let us first consider the pertinent provisions of the 

,existing Sections of Article 6687b. 

Section l(n) of said Article reads as follows: 

“‘Commercial Operator!,’ Every person 

who ,is the driver of a,motor vehicle 

desIgned or used for the transportation 

of property, including all vehicles used 

for delivery purposes, while said vehicle 

is being Ised for commercial or delivery 

purposes. 

Section 2(a) of said Article reads as;follows: 

“NO person, except those hereinafter 

expressly exempted, shall drive any motor 

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 commercial operator, or a 

'chauffeur under the.provisions of this 

Act." 

~Section 3(4a) of said Article before the amendment 

above mentioned, reads as follows: 

"A person operating a commercial motor 

vehicle, the gross weight of which does 

not exceed six thousand '(6,000) pounds as 

thatterm is defined in Article 6675a-6 

of the'Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 

.operated in the manner and bearing current 

farm registration plates as provided in 

Article 6675ah6a of.the Revised Civil 

Statutes, who holds an operator's license, 

shall not 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 'goes into effect,.provides that an ordinary 

operator's license Is sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle 

described in said Section If the vehicle does not exceed 6,000 

pounds In weight and Is operated In the manner and bearing 

'current farm registration as provided in Article 6675a-6a. 

House Bill 154 amendsSection 3(4a) above ~quoted to 

read as follows: 

"A person operating a truck with a 

manufacturer's rated carrying capacity 

not to exceed 2,000 pounds, which is 

Intended to include trucks commonly 

knowr'as pickup trucks, panel delivery 

trucks, station wagons, and carry-all 

trucks, who holds an operator's license, 

shall not be required to obf;(ain a commercial operator's license. 

-2290- 

We ~see from said~ amendment that the operator of a farm 

truck is no longer exempt from securing a commercial license 

because of the weight of the motor 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 vehicles named as pickup trucks, panel 

trucks, station wagons, and carry-all trucks, do not require 

a commercial operator's license but only an ordinary operator's 

license. 
Honorable Homer Garrison, Jr., Page 3 (C-484) 

We believe that it was the intention of the Legislature 

to exempt the operator of light motor vehicles from securing a 

commercial operator's license, The first clause of the caption 

to House Bill 154 reads as follows: 

"An Act permitting a person holding 

a valid license as operator to drive 

certain motor vehicles." 

While the amended Section 3(4a) does not use the specific 

words "passenger vehicle" yet we believe that it was the intention of the Legislature in exempting light vehicles to Include 

passenger vehicles. The 'amendment does use the term "station 

wagons and such vehicles are certainly passenger vehicles, 

In Nichols v. State, 242 S.W.2d,396 (Tex.Crim. 1951) 

the Court held that an indictment charging one with driving 

an 'automobile" while Intoxicated supported a conviction when 

proof showed that defendant was driving a truck. The Court 

cites many authorities holding 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 

oft ordinary automobiles to secure a commercial operator's license, 

then we doubt the constitutionality of 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 station wagons. Under 

Article 6687b, Section 19, V.C.S., an operator's license Is 

only $3.00 while that for commercial operator'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 that provision, 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 station wagon 

used for commercial purposes need not pay the larger fee nor 

take the stricter examination and yet the driver of some light 

automobile must pay such high fee and take the stricter examination. It is a well settled rule that in the construction of a 

statute, ambiguous language or language of doubtful meaning, 

will not be given a construction which will render an act or 

provision arbitrary of discriminatory, futile or 

offensive, or unreasonable. See 53 Tex.Jur.2d, 2 E l-242, 

urposeless, 

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 conclusions or consequences 

if the language of the enactment is susceptible of any other 

meaning. Ibid Page 243; Section 165. 

Another well settled rule is that in case of apparent 

conflict between two acts or statutory provisions, both are to 

be given effect if reasonably possible. Ibid Page 225, Section 

157. 

A court will also endeavor to interpret a statute so 

that It will be constitutional and 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 specifically mentioned 

in the amended statute, and since the term '"station wagons" 

includes passenger vehicles, we are of the opinion that your 

question should be answered in the negative. 

SUMMARY 

The operator of a passenger automobile 

used for commercial purposes 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 

Attorney General of Texas 

HGC/f b 

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-