Court Opinion

ID: 9717188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:59:47.782882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:51.928376
License: Public Domain

CHEZEM, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority's finding that Ordinance § 116.18 and Ind.Code § 9-8-6-29 are in conflict. Other Ordinances involving the use of the ice cream truck equipment required in § 116.13 require lights to be displayed only when the truck is stopped and vending. I1.C. § 9-8-6-29 states that "no person shall drive or move any vehicle ... displaying a red light...." "Drive or move" is clearly distinguishable from stopped and vending. The majority cites Cushman Motor Delivery Co. v. McCabe (1941), 219 Ind. 156, 36 N.E.2d 769, as stating that the chapter of the Code requiring lights on motor vehicles which referred only to those being operated or driven include motor vehicles at rest temporarily or parked upon public highways, as well as those in motion. However, Cushman is distinguishable because the Code section involved in Cushman referred to vehicles being operated or driven as opposed to being driven or moved. The word move clearly cannot be construed as stop, but the word operate, may be construed as stop depending on the nature of the work the vehicle does. Also, Cushman involved brake lights as opposed to emergency lights.
Further, the words "red light" mean that the red-lensed light is illuminated, then the light, not the fixture, but the actual light is visible. These "lights" are only on when the truck is stopped and vending. Section 116.13 and I.C. 9-8-6-29 are not in conflict.