Court Opinion

ID: 9853426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:48:36.759435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:47.569003
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent.
The question in this appeal is whether particular hay grinding equipment (Attachment A) fabricated to the specifications of the owners is an implement of husbandry as defined by Iowa Code section 321.1(32). The Iowa Department of Transportation contends it is not, and the district court agreed, determining the grinding equipment is not “vehicles which are designed by agricultural purposes” or “vehicles which are principally designed for agricultural purposes.” Plaintiffs-appellants Jeffrey L. Prichard, Jason S. Prichard and Stewart H. Prichard and inter-venor-appellant Jerry D. Prichard who own and operate such equipment appeal contending the trial court erred and its findings are not supported by substantial evidence. I agree and would reverse.
The basic facts are not in dispute. The equipment in question was not designed by a major manufacturer, rather, it was built to specifications of the various appellants. The equipment’s component parts include a hay grinder and a straight truck. The hay grinder is permanently mounted or fixed to the frame of a truck described as a straight truck. The equipment is transported to the farm where it is used and once reaching the farm is transported to the stack or bales of hay that are then fed into the hay grinder. The motor that propels the truck is not used to operate the hay grinder. When the actual grinding operation is in progress, a different motor is used.
The truck component, while not necessary for the actual grinding operation, is necessary both to bring the hay grinder to the farm and also to take the hay grinder to that place on the farm where the hay stack or bales are located. And, therefore, eliminate the need to transport bales sometimes weighing as much as one ton. Also, the equipment, as modified, is not suitable for use as a truck for hauling.
The Iowa legislature, recognizing the importance of agriculture to rural Iowa and the need to move equipment of husbandry from place to place, has made special provisions for implements of husbandry. Implements of husbandry are generally not subject to the provisions of Iowa Code Chapter 321E (1993), which restrict the movement of oversized vehicles on public highways, except by permits.
The term “implement of husbandry” is defined in Iowa Code section 321.1(32) as follows:
“Implement of husbandry” means every vehicle which is designed for agricultural purposes and exclusively used, except as herein otherwise provided, by the owner thereof in the conduct of the owner’s agricultural operations. Implements of husbandry shall also include:
[[Image here]]
b. Any vehicle which is principally designed for agricultural purposes and which is moved during daylight hours for a distance not to exceed one hundred miles by a person either: ...
It is agreed this particular hay grinding equipment is a vehicle. Iowa Code section 321.1(90) defines a “vehicle” as “every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway.”
It' is also agreed hay grinders, standing alone, are principally designed for agricultural purposes. It is without dispute, as fabricated, the equipment’s basic purpose is to transport the hay grinder to the hay and then grind the hay.
The State advances the fact modifications to the motor truck were made under the appellants’ direction rather than being designed by the manufacturer does not convert it into an instrument of husbandry. I do not consider the question of who designed the equipment relevant to my determination. The question is whether the equipment, as designed and fabricated, meets the statutory definition of an implement of husbandry. To hold otherwise would be to say an Iowa farmer could not design his or her own equipment.
*626The State’s next argument is the equipment is not used exclusively in agriculture because the appellants use it to grind a number of other persons’ hay in addition to their own.
The State relies in support of its position on Worthington v. McDonald, 246 Iowa 466, 68 N.W.2d 89 (1955). In Worthington, the defendant argued the plaintiffs combine was not an implement of husbandry within the statutory definition because it was not used exclusively in the conduct of his [plaintiffs] agricultural operations where plaintiff was traveling eighteen miles to his brother-in-law’s farm to combine soybeans. Id. 246 Iowa at 469, 68 N.W.2d at 91. In Worthington, the court said, “We think it cannot be said as a matter of law plaintiff was not conducting his agricultural operations merely because he was on his way to combine beans for another for pay. The combining of grain, a form of threshing, is certainly an agricultural operation” id., and “[w]e cannot accept defendant’s argument that the only temporary movements of such an implement are from one field to another on the land farmed by the owner of the implement.” In Worthington, 246 Iowa at 471, 68 N.W.2d at 92, the court said, “the language of section 321.453 is not so limited nor is such a construction of the statute reasonably called for.” Id. The court in Worthington discussed in dicta that to adopt the defendant’s argument would mean that section 321.1(16) does not apply to a farmer’s occasional movement of equipment to a neighbor’s farm. Id. 246 Iowa at 470, 68 N.W.2d at 91. However, the court carefully did not limit or define agricultural operation to farming one’s own land but indicated if it were the legislative intent to limit, then the legislature could restrict the meaning. See id.
The Iowa legislature has not seen fit to restrict the section and has long recognized the need to move equipment associated with farming operations. The methods and operation of farming have changed with the advent of larger and more expensive machinery and larger areas under the cultivation of one or more persons. This makes individual ownership of all equipment necessary for farming not economically feasible. The evidence at trial was haying involved a number of stages and a number of pieces of equipment and the expense of the equipment required custom operations.
I would reverse.
ATTACHMENT "A"
[[Image here]]