Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1973 )


Menu:
  •                                 AURTIN.   %-EXAS       78711
    September     14, 1973
    Honorable   Robert W.           Post                   Opinion   No.   H-102
    County Attorney
    Dewitt County                                          Re:       Applicability  of Art.
    P. 0. Box 110                                                    459013 and 6701d,
    Cuero,   Texas 77954                                             V. T. C. S., to private
    ambulances
    Dear   Mr.       Post:
    You have requested our opinion concerning    the regulation of
    private     ambulances  under the provisions of Articles   4590b and 6701d,
    V. T. C. S.
    Your    first   two questions   are as follows:
    1. “Is the operator       of a private ambulance
    which answers calls from         the police dispatcher to
    pick up victims of wrecks        or other emergencies
    required to have a permit        from the State Board of
    Health under Art. 4590b?”
    2.“Is the operator of a private ambulance
    which does not answer calls from the police dis-
    patcher to pick up victims of wrecks,    etc., but
    which does transfer private patients from home
    to hospital and from one hospital to another,   required
    to have a permit from the State Board of Health under
    Art. 4590b? ”
    Article 4590b, Vernon’s   Texas Civil Statutes,   provides in part that
    no person shall operate ” . . . any emergency     ambulance,   public or pri-
    vate, or any other vehicle commonly    used for the transportation   or convey-
    ance of the sick or injured, without first securing a permit thcrefor from
    the State Board of Health . . . . ”
    p.   467
    The Honorable   Robert   W.   Post,   page 2 (H-102)
    This statute is applicable to “any emergency   ambulance,  public or
    private, ” and thus your first questionmust   be answered in the affirmative.
    The statute also applies to “any other vehicle commonly        used for
    the transportation   or conveyance   of the sick or injured, ” which we believe
    covers the circumstances     described in your second question.       We also
    believe that the Legislature   intended for the phrase “public or private”
    to apply to such other vehicles.     The statute as passed declared an emer-
    gency “for the benefit of public safety, ” Acts,    48th Legislature,   1943,
    p. 633. ch. 360, and we see no distinction between public and private
    ambulances    in serving this purpose.    Accordingly,   we answer your second
    question in the affirmative.
    Your   next two questions   are as follows:
    3. “Is the operator of a private ambulance
    operated under permit from the State Board of
    Health in violation of Art. 6701d if the ambulance
    does not have the siren and flashing red lights
    required by’that Article? ”
    4.   “Is the operator of a private ambulance
    operated (either legally or illegally,    depending on
    the answer [to] the first two questions above) with-
    out a permit from the State Board of Health in vio-
    lation of Art. 6701d if the ambulance does not have
    the siren and flashing red lights required by that
    Article?   ”
    Article 6701d. 5 2(d), defines “authorized emergency   vehicle” to
    ihclude ” . . . public and private ambulances    for which permits have
    been issued by the State Board of Health. . . .‘I
    Article 6701d, 5 124(a), requires every “authorized  emergency
    vehicle” to be equipped with siren, whistle,   or bell; and S 124(b) requires
    it to be equipped with signal lamps displaying both to front and to rear
    two alternately  flashing red lights, etc.
    p. 468
    The Honorable      Robert   W.   Post,   page 3 (H-102)
    A private ambulance operating under a permit from the State Board
    of Health is plainly an “authorized   emergency   vehicle” under -4rticLe 670ld
    $ 2(d) and is thus subject to the requirements   of each section of Article
    670ld applicable to authorized emergency     vehicles.   Accordingly  your third
    question requires an affirmative    answer.
    The operation of a private ambulance without a permit is in violation
    of Article 4590b and subjects the operator to the penalties set forth in 5 5
    of that act.   We believe that the Legislature     intended the provisions   of
    Article   6701d to apply to all vehicles that are subject to the provisions     of
    Article 459013, whether in compliance       with that statute or not, and certainly
    the Legislature    did not intend to exempt owners and operators       of ambulances
    on the basis of non-compliance      with Article 4590b.     This would ascribe to
    the Legislature    an unreasonable   intent, in violation of basic rules of statu-
    tory construction.      53 Tex. Jur. 2d,         Statutes,      5 126.
    Accordingly,      your fourth question            is answered      in the affirmative.
    SUMMARY
    Both Articles 4590b and 670ld, V. T. C. S., are
    applicable to private ambulances  and require that
    they be licensed by the State Board of Health and
    carry the required equipment.
    Very     truly yours,
    A I&``OVED:
    (   &,$R\srY   F/   YORK,   F/i-s;   Assist&t
    Opinion’ Committee
    p.    469
    

Document Info

Docket Number: H-102

Judges: John Hill

Filed Date: 7/2/1973

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017