Opinion ID: 2218955
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did trial court err in finding Jensen's agent negligent per se?

Text: In instruction # 24, trial court informed the jury that the court had found the operator of the combine to be negligent as a matter of law by violating the highway safety laws of the state in failing to utilize an escort vehicle. From a review of the record and based on this instruction, it appears trial court made this determination based on an administrative rule, ARSD 70:03:01:20. We hold that the determination that Jensen was negligent as a matter of law, based as it was on ARSD 70:03:01:20, is in error. ARSD 70:03:01:20 provided, at the time relied upon by trial court, as follows: Escort vehicles are required in front on two-lane highways or in the rear on divided highways for loads over 16 feet wide while on the interstate highway system and for loads over 20 feet wide while on the state highway system. The permit-issuing authority may also require escort vehicles because of route limitations, traffic conditions, or unusual permit vehicle configuration conditions. Special traffic handling is required if the permit vehicle extends more than two feet into an adjacent driving lane or passing lane or if the width of the vehicle does not allow normal traffic to pass without either the traffic or the permit vehicle being driven on the roadway's shoulder. At a minimum, a ten-foot wide lane must be allowed for normal traffic to pass. Special traffic handling may also be required if the permit vehicle has to perform special maneuvers in order to make turns, cross bridges, or clear height restrictions. Special traffic handling includes escorts and flagpersons located at the front or rear, or both, of the vehicle, or as required by the permit-issuing authority, to stop, advise, or hold normal traffic until the permit vehicle has completed its special maneuver or it can be pulled off the road at an intersecting road, turnout, or similar place and stopped to allow the normal traffic to pass. (Emphasis added.) ARSD 70:03:01:20 has since been revised, though its terms have not been materially altered. However, in effect at this time is the following administrative rule: 70:03:01:18. No permit needed for movement of hay, feed, or farm machinery by farmersException. Except on the interstate highway system, farmers may move their own overwidth and overheight but not overweight hay or stacked livestock feed, including baled feed, and their own overwidth and overheight but not overweight farm machinery without a permit. (Emphasis added.) This rule exception is still in effect. It is readily apparent from a reading of the administrative rules together that the section of the administrative rules in which they are contained pertains to vehicles which must obtain a permit from the permit-issuing authority. It is a general proposition that administrative rules are subject to the same rules of construction as statutes. Nelson v. State Board of Dentistry, 464 N.W.2d 621 (S.D.1991). Therefore, we construe administrative rules according to their intent as determined from the rule as a whole and other rules relating to the same subject. See, Border States Paving, Inc. v. S.D. Dept. of Revenue, 437 N.W.2d 872 (S.D.1989) (statutes construed according to their intent as determined from statute as a whole and enactments relating to same subject). Jensen did not violate ARSD 70:03:01:20 because ARSD 70:03:01:18 specifically exempts farm machinery from the permit vehicle regulations. It is undeniable that the vehicle Jensen's agent was driving was, indeed, a piece of motorized or self-propelled farm machinery. Cf. State v. Poncelet, 463 N.W.2d 673, 674 (S.D.1990). Further, it is equally undeniable that Jensen is, in fact, a farmer and that his agent was carrying out those activities for Jensen. Though Jensen was engaged in custom combining for another farmer, we find no indication in ARSD 70:03:01:18, or this section of the administrative rules as a whole, that this activity does not come within the definition of farmers therein, nor will we read such an implication into ARSD 70:03:01:18. Additionally relevant to this discussion, is SDCL 32-22-3. This statute, as it existed in 1989, provided: Except for farm machinery, no motor vehicle may operate upon a public highway if the width, measured at the widest points, either of the vehicle or the load, exceeds one hundred two inches, excluding any required safety equipment. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor. (Emphasis added.) This statutory provision exempts farm machinery from SDCL 32-22-38. We reverse the trial court's holding that Jensen was negligent as a matter of law, based as it was, upon a conceptual violation of ARSD 70:03:01:20.