Court Opinion

ID: 9624026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:48:49.225334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:37.903847
License: Public Domain

SHENK, J.
I concur in the judgment of affirmance and in the reasons on which it is based, with the following additional observations.
Section 1075 of the Streets and Highways Code has been the law of this state since 1921. The statutory requirements for registration and licensing of civil engineers did not appear until 1929. Before 1929 the term “competent engineer” was therefore not used to designate a “registered engineer.” After 1929 a registered engineer might well be deemed a competent engineer, but both before and after 1929 an engineer could in fact be a competent engineer and not be registered. The requirement of registration of civil engineers is purely statutory and applies generally to those who desire to practice that profession. Likewise the requirements with reference to the construction of roads and highways are matters of legislative control.
In 1947 the Legislature enacted section 2006 of the Streets and Highways Code. That section provides for the appointment of a single road commissioner in each county and that the road commissioner so appointed be a registered civil engineer, with the specific exception “that an unregistered person may be employed as road commissioner if approved by the board of supervisors as qualified and competent to handle the road and highway work of the county.” It is section 6730 of the Business and Professions Code which requires that all who practice or offer to practice civil engineering be registered. This is a general provision. Section 2006 of the Streets and Highways Code as above noted contains the special provision. Under familiar rules of statutory construction the special provision controls the general. Pursuant to the special statute an unregistered person found by the board of supervisors to be qualified and competent to supervise the road and highway work of the county may be employed. The policy and desirability of employing only registered civil engineers in con*583nection with highway construction is for the Legislature and not for the courts to determine. The petitioner does not dispute the qualifications of the road commissioner employed in this case on any ground other than that he is not a registered civil engineer. But when he has been appointed as provided in section 2006 of the Streets and Highways Code he is entitled to act and the registration requirements are not applicable to him.
In this case the District Court of Appeal of the Third Appellate District arrived at the same result in a well considered opinion. (Hard v. County of Plumas, 210 P.2d 58.)
EDMONDS, J.
Although under section 2006 of the Streets and Highways Code ‘ ‘ an unregistered person may be employed as road commissioner if approved by the board of supervisors as qualified and competent to handle the road and highway work of the county,” such a person is not “a competent engineer” within the meaning of section 1075 of the same code. To say that an unregistered person employed as a road commissioner has “legal authorization” to practice civil engineering by supervising the building of a highway by day labor seems to be directly contrary to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in the phrase “competent engineer,” and to the requirement for the registration of engineers as stated in section 6730 of the Business and Professions Code.
Sections 1070 to 1075 of the Streets and Highways Code provide the method by which a county may perform highway work. When the estimated cost of such work exceeds $3,000, the board of supervisors must direct the preparation of profiles, cross-sections, plans, and specifications (§ 1071); publish notices for sealed bids (§ 1072); publicly open all bids received and award the contract for the work to the lowest responsible bidder, unless the bids are too high and the work can be done more cheaply by day labor (§ 1073). Only if the estimated expense of the proposed project is $3,000 or less may the board of supervisors let a contract for the work without calling for bids, or purchase the materials and do the work by day labor. (§ 1074.)
However, under specified circumstances/? section 1075 relaxes the general requirements as to specifications, bids, and contracts for work estimated to cost in excess of $3,000. “In any county employing a competent engineer as road com*584missioner, the board may have any work upon county highways done under the supervision and direction of such engineer. Such work may be done: . . . (c) By purchasing the material and having the work done by day labor.” (§ 1075.)
At the time of the enactment of the statute which is now section 1075 of the Streets and Highways Code (Stats. 1921, p. 1645), it is obvious that by the use of the term “competent engineer” the Legislature required some degree or standard of professional ability. As then in effect, section 2640 of the Political Code contained provisions relating to the method of performing road work which were substantially the same as those of sections 1070 to 1075 of the Streets and Highways Code. The last portion of section 2640, after providing for plans and specifications, calling for bids and letting of contracts, read as follows: “Provided, however, that in those counties employing a competent engineer as road commissioner, the board of supervisors may have any work to be done upon highways of the county done under the supervision and direction of said engineer, either ... 3. By purchasing the material and having the work done by day labor. ...”
Although the terms “competent engineer” and “engineer” were used by the Legislature in 1921, it did not set up any professional standard for such person until 1929, when a licensing statute was enacted. (Stats. 1929, ch. 801, p. 1645.) After 1930, it became “. . . unlawful for any person to practice as a civil engineer in this state, unless such person has been duly registered or specifically exempted as required by the provisions of this act.” (Stats. 1929, ch. 801, §1, p. 1645.) Since that time, the only person who is entitled to practice civil engineering is one who has received a license from the “state board of registration for civil engineers.” The fact that only the designated board may authorize a person to practice civil engineering or any of its branches is emphasized by the 1939 enactment of section 6734 of the Business and Professions Code which provides: “No one shall represent himself as, or use the title of, registered civil engineer, or any other title whereby such person could be considered as practicing or offering to practice civil engineering in any of its branches, unless he is qualified by registration under this chapter.”
The manifest purpose of the licensing act for civil engineers, now chapter 7 of the Business and Professions Code, is to require that no person may be considered or held out to be such an engineer who has not “. . . been duly registered as required by the provisions of this chapter or specifically *585exempted therefrom.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6730.) It necessarily follows that, at least since 1929, the appointment of a person as road commissioner does not ipso facto give him the status of an “engineer” or “competent engineer” within the meaning of section 1075 of the Streets and Highways Code.
Any doubt concerning the above conclusion was effectively removed by the enactment of section 2006 of the Streets and Highways Code. By that statute the board of supervisors may appoint as road commissioner either a registered civil engineer or a person qualified and' competent to handle the county’s road work. But the right to appoint an unregistered person does not mean that by doing so the county may authorize road work to be done by day labor which the statute specifically requires may be performed only under the supervision and direction of a competent engineer. Such a construction of the statute would allow a person who does not have the qualifications entitling him to be registered as a civil engineer, because of his appointment as road commissioner to do those things which are contrary to the public policy of the state.
The Legislature has stated that policy in no uncertain terms. “In order to safeguard life, health, property and public welfare,” it declared, “any person, either in a public or private capacity, . . . [with certain exceptions not here applicable] . . . who practices, or offers to practice civil engineering in any of its branches in this State, shall submit evidence that he is qualified to practice, and shall be registered by the board [of Registration for Civil Engineers].” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6730.) The wide scope of the legislation is found in another section which reads: ‘ ‘ Civil engineering embraces that branch of professional engineering which deals with . . . highways . [and] also includes city and regional planning in so far as any of the above features are concerned therein. ...” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6731.) In addition to these strict requirements, the Legislature declared that every person is guilty of a misdemeanor who “. . . practices or offers to practice civil engineering in this State according to the provisions .of this chapter without legal authorization.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6787.)
These statutes are all inclusive. They directly negate any intention to give the county boards of supervisors the power to determine the qualifications of a civil engineer for any purpose, or to divest the State Board of Registration for Civil Engineers of its functions. By their terms, only a *586county which employs as road commissioner a person who is legally authorized by chapter 7 of the Business and Professions Code to practice civil engineering may construct or repair a county highway by purchasing the material and using day labor if the cost of such work exceeds $3,000, without directing the preparation of plans and specifications and advertising for bids on the project.
For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment.
Traynor, J., and Spence, J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied July 27, 1950. Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., and Spence, J., voted for a rehearing.