Number 16. November 1, 1968

Number 16. November 1, 1968 HONORABLE RICHARD E. McLAUGHLIN Registrar ofMotor Vehicles 100 Nashua Street Boston, Massachusetts 021 14 Dear General McLaughlin: You have requested my opinion on a certain question arising under the following provision of G.L. c. 90, § 19: "No motor vehicle shall be operated on any way to draw more than one trailer or other vehicle without a permit so to operate from the department of public works." Your question is whether a certain towing device is a "trailer or other vehicle" for purposes of the foregoing provision, and hence, whether the use of a motor vehicle to tow another vehicle by means of this device would fall within the statutory prohibition. This device is described in your letter as "T-shaped, and similar in appearance to a small boat trailer, although of heavier construction." According to your letter, it "permits the towing of another motor vehicle by fitting its two wheels under the front or rear wheels of the towed vehicle, leaving the vehicle's other two wheels in contact with the ground." The general design of this device is best explained by the following illustrations, furnished by your staff: ^^O^ h The shaft at the front of the device is attached to the rear of the towing vehicle, while a hoist at the rear of the device is attached to the towed vehicle in the following manner: P.D. 12 65 I am of the opinion that the device in question is a "trailer" for purposes of the above-quoted statutory provision. The word "trailer" is defined in G.L. c. 90, § 1 to include (with exceptions not here material) "any vehicle or object on wheels and having no motive power of its own, but which is drawn by or used in combination with, a motor vehicle." This towing device is plainly a "vehicle or object on wheels" and otherwise meets all the requirements of the foregoing definition. Under the terms of G.L. c. 90, § 1, this definition is controlling "unless a different meaning is clearly apparent from the language or context, or unless such construction is inconsistent with the manifest intention of the legislature . ..." I can find nothing in the "language or context" of the statutory provision under consideration from which it is "clearly apparent" that the word "trailer" is used therein with "a different meaning." Nor, in my view, can this construction of the statutory provision be regarded as "inconsistent with the manifest intention of the legislature." As to the latter point, it has been suggested that this device is nothing more than a type of towing hitch, and that the Legislature could never have intended to subject it to the severe restrictions applicable to trailers merely because it is equipped with two wheels. This argument, of course, rests on the assumption that the Legislature could not reasonably have regarded the purpose of these restrictions as being served by applying them to a device of this kind. I do not think that any such assumption is warranted. The statutory provision relative to towing more than a single vehicle was inserted in G.L. c. 90, § 19 by St. 1930, c. 297, on the basis of a bill submitted by the Department of Public Works (1930 House Doc. No. 59), as a part of that Department's annual report to the General Court. The descriptive portion of this report (1930 House Doc. No. 56) explained the purposes of the accompanying bill as follows: "One of the most hazardous features of the operation of motor vehicles, with trailers, on the highways, is the use of more than one such trailer. Such combinations of vehicles create another element of uncertainty in the overtaking and passing by other vehicles, and furthermore, it is not believed that the highways should become roadways for trains of such vehicles. It is therefore recommended that section 19 of chapter 90 of the General Laws, be amended to prohibit such operation. Since the 1930 statute is identical to the bill submitted by the Department of Public Works, the stated purpose of the Department in filing the bill must be ascribed to the Legislature in enacting it. Thus, this legislation was partly aimed at eliminating a potential "element of uncertainty in the overtaking and passing 66 P.D. 12 by other vehicles." Whether the use of this device in a towing operation would in fact "create another element of uncertainty in the overtaking and passing by other vehicles" is a matter of engineering judgment on which I do not feel qualified to express opinion. But that is not the issue in any event. The real issue is whether the Legislature could reasonably have believed that the use of such a device might have this effect. The answer lies in the fact that several experts at the Registry of Motor Vehicle| and Department of Public Works contacted by my staff think that it would. The very existence of such expert opinion tends to undermine any contention that the Legislature could not reasonably have intended to classify this towing device as a "trailer" for purposes of G.L. c. 90, § 19. This being the case, there is no basis for inferring that the application to § 19 of the definition of "trailer" in § 1 would be "inconsistent with the manifest intention of the legislature." The definition in § 1 must therefore control. Accordingly, it is my opinion that in the absence of a permit from the Department of Public Works, G.L. c. 90, § 19 prohibits the use of this device, in combination with a motor vehicle, to tow another vehicle on any way of the Commonwealth. Very truly yours, ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON Attorney General