Source: https://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1980s/op06461.htm
Timestamp: 2020-04-01 01:20:10
Document Index: 98975518

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4']

Opinion #6461
Opinion No. 6461
CARNIVAL-AMUSEMENT SAFETY ACT OF 1966:
Provision of liability insurance or bond by operator of rides
Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24--title to act regulating safety of carnival amusements
The Carnival-Amusement Safety Act of 1966, 1966 PA 225, Sec. 16, which requires the nongovernmental owner or operator of a carnival or amusement ride to provide liability insurance or a bond to protect persons riding the carnival or amusement ride, was enacted in conformity with Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24.
You have asked whether Sec. 16 of the Carnival-Amusement Safety Act of 1966, MCL 408.666; MSA 18.484(16), hereinafter the "Act," which imposes a requirement upon a nongovernmental owner or operator to provide liability insurance or a bond, is unconstitutional because neither the title of the Act as originally adopted nor the amendment of the title of the Act by means of 1982 PA 35 mentions that requirement.
MCL 408.666; MSA 18.484(16), as originally enacted, states:
"No person shall operate a carnival-amusement ride unless at the time there is in existence (a) a policy of insurance in an amount of not less than $50,000.00 insuring the owner or operator against liability for injury suffered by persons riding the carnival-amusement ride, or (b) a bond in a like amount: Provided, however, That the aggregate liability of the surety under any such bond shall not exceed the face amount thereof, or (c) cash or other security acceptable to the board."
The title of the Carnival-Amusement Safety Act of 1966, 1966 PA 225, as originally enacted, provides:
"AN ACT to provide for the inspection, licensing, and regulation of carnival and amusement rides; to provide for the safety of the public using carnival and amusement rides, to create a carnival-amusement safety board in department of labor; to provide for the disposition of revenues; to make an appropriation; and to provide penalties for violations."
1982 PA 35 amended the title to the Act to substitute "licensing and regulation" for "labor."
The history of Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, and its predecessor provisions demonstrates that the objective is to provide notice to the public of legislation under consideration, irrespective of legislative merit. Anderson v Oakland County Clerk, 419 Mich 313, 329; 353 NW2d 448 (1984). Thus, the purpose of Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, is to assure that legislation is understood by the legislators and by the public at large. Maki v City of East Tawas, 385 Mich 151, 157; 188 NW2d 593 (1971).
Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, "embodies two separate concepts:
"1. That the law shall not embrace more than one object, and
"2. That the object which the law embraces shall be expressed in its title." Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1975 PA 227 (Question 1), 396 Mich 123, 128; 240 NW2d 193 (1976).
Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, was explained in City of Gaylord v Gaylord City Clerk, 378 Mich 273, 288; 144 NW2d 460 (1966), where the court stated:
"Justice Thomas M. Cooley has stated the principle to be followed in applying this section:
'It ought to be construed reasonably, and not in so narrow and technical a sense as unnecessarily to embarrass legislation.' Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich 269, 277 (1868), citing People, ex rel. Drake, v. Mahaney, 13 Mich 481, 494."
Michigan Law and Practice, Statutes, Sec. 32, p 43, states:
"All matters which are germane to, and connected with, the general purpose of a statute may be included in its provisions without rendering it violative of the constitutional provision prohibiting a statute from embracing more than one object, and a statute, no matter how comprehensive it may be or how numerous its provisions, complies with the constitutional requirement if a single main purpose is held in view and nothing is embraced in the act except what is naturally connected with, and incidental to, that object or purpose."
Section 16 of Act requires the owner or operator to obtain either liability insurance or a bond to protect the public against the owner's or operator's liability for injuries suffered by persons riding the carnival or amusement ride. This requirement is within the nature and general purpose of the Act, that of licensing and regulating the carnival industry. Thus, the Act does not embrace more than one object.
The second concept of Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, is "[t]hat the object which the law embraces shall be expressed in its title." Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1975 PA 227 (Question 1), supra, 396 Mich at 128.
It has been held that " '[a]ny provisions germane to the subject expressed in the title may properly be included in the act or added thereto by amendment, and it is sufficient if the title fairly expresses the subject or is sufficiently comprehensive to include the several provisions relating to, or connected with, that subject.' " Benson v State Hospital Comm'n, 316 Mich 66, 77; 25 NW2d 112 (1946), quoting from Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (6th Ed), p 172; L.A. Darling Co v Water Resources Comm'n, 341 Mich 662; 67 NW2d 890 (1955).
Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, does not require that the title to an act contain an index of all the provisions as long as the provisions are consistent with the object as expressed in the act's title. People v Andrea, 48 Mich App 310, 322; 210 NW2d 479 (1973). "In short, it is enough if an title of an act fairly indicates to a reasonable and inquiring mind the general scope, intent and purpose of the law." Green v Court Administrator, 263-264; 205 NW2d 306 (1972), citing Baker v. State Land Office Bd, 294 Mich 587; 293 NW 654 (1940).
While the requirement of MCL 408.666; MSA 18.484(16), that amusement park operators be insured, is not listed in the title, the Act's title is broad enough to put the Legislature and the public on notice that liability insurance or a bond may be required under the proposed legislation. The opening sentence of the title, "AN ACT to provide for the inspection, licensing and regulation of carnival and amusement rides," is adequate notice of the subject matter of the Act. This is all that Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, requires the title of an act to do.
With respect to the 1980 amendment to MCL 408.666; MSA 28.484(16), the law is clear that where acts and amendments to acts are germane to the original, general objective stated in the title of the bill, the amendments are valid. Common Council of Detroit v Schmid, 128 Mich 379; 87 NW 383 (1901), The Board of Supervisors of Chippewa County v The Auditor General, 65 Mich 408; 32 NW 651 (1887).
In People v Howard, 73 Mich 10, 14; 40 NW 789 (1888), the court stated:
"Acts entitled 'acts to amend a named act' are not obnoxious to the Constitution, if the amendment fairly comes within the scope of the title of the original act."
1980 PA 203, Sec. 1, does not fundamentally change the purpose of MCL 408.666; MSA 18.484(16). The amendment merely increases the amount of the liability insurance or bond which most owners and operators of carnival or amusement rides must carry while allowing for certain exemptions for governmental units which have otherwise demonstrated to the Department of Licensing and Regulation that they are capable of paying up to $300,000.00 in the event of liability for personal injury.
While the title to the Act was amended by 1982 PA 35 to give notice of the transfer of the Carnival-Amusement Safety Board from the Department of Labor to the Department of Licensing and Regulation, the amendatory act did not amend Sec. 16 of the Act.
Since MCL 408.666; MSA 18.484(16), as originally passed, is germane to the purposes expressed in the Act's title, MCL 408.666; MSA 18.484(16), as amended by 1980 PA 103, must also be deemed germane to the purpose expressed in the title. Thus, MCL 408.666; MSA 18.484(16), as amended, complies with Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24.
It is my opinion, therefore, that MCL 408.666; MSA 18.484(16), as amended by 1980 PA 103, Sec. 1, is in full force and effect because it was passed in compliance with Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24.