Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Com., BROWNING-FERRI
| Docket Nº | INC |
| Citation | 300 S.E.2d 603, 225 Va. 157 |
| Case Date | March 11, 1983 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
Page 603
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
[225 Va. 158] Robert W. Wooldridge, Jr., Fairfax (Terrence Ney, Elizabeth Land Lewis, Boothe, Prichard & Dudley, Fairfax, on brief), for appellant.
Jeffrey A. Spencer, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Gerald L. Baliles, Atty. Gen., Walter A. McFarlane, Deputy Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.
Page 604
Before [225 Va. 157] CARRICO, C.J., and COCHRAN, POFF, COMPTON, THOMPSON, * STEPHENSON, and RUSSELL, JJ.
[225 Va. 158] THOMPSON, Justice.
The sole question involved in this appeal is whether the vehicles operated by Browning-Ferris, Inc. (BFI), in transporting its customers' waste materials (garbage, debris, refuse, and trash) to landfills for disposal are "for hire" vehicles within the meaning of Code §§ 46.1-1(35) and -160. In a traffic-infraction prosecution, the trial court ruled in the affirmative and convicted the defendant. We agree with the ruling and affirm its judgment.
BFI is a corporation engaged in the business of providing waste collection and disposal services by contract with its customers. It supplies the customers with special containers for temporary storage[225 Va. 159] of the waste material. On demand, BFI removes the contents of the container, either by dumping the waste into a truck or by transporting the container by truck over public highways to a landfill. The customer agrees in the contract that "[a]ll title to the solid waste shall be vested in [BFI] when such waste has been loaded into Company's trucks." BFI bases its service charges upon the quantity of material, frequency of disposal, and rental for the container. It also pays a required fee to the landfill for disposal of the wastes.
On the occasion in question, a state trooper stopped a BFI truck in Loudoun County. The vehicle contained industrial wastes being transported from the customers' premises to the landfill and had a gross weight in excess of 18,000 pounds. It did not display "for hire" license plates.
BFI challenges the holding of the trial court, contending that (1) waste is not property; (2) even if waste is property, it belongs to BFI and therefore BFI cannot be charged a license tax for transporting its own property; and (3) the statute is inapplicable because BFI's primary business is not transportation.
I. Is Industrial Waste "Property" Within the Meaning of Code § 46.1-1(35)?
Our task is the proper interpretation of Code § 46.1-1(35), the relevant portion of which states:
The terms operation ... for hire ... as a property carrier for compensation ... wherever used in this title, mean any owner or operator of any motor vehicle, ... operating over the highways of this State who accepts or receives compensation for the service, directly or indirectly ....
BFI contends that the industrial waste which it was transporting at the time of the alleged infraction was not property since it had no economic value. We decline to adopt that interpretation.
One of the definitions of property as found in Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1818 (1981) states that property is "something that is or may be owned or possessed." We endorse the reasoning of the Supreme Court of South Dakota in the case of Northern Hills Sanitation, Inc. v. Cossart, 264 N.W.2d 711, 713 (S.D.1978):
[225 Va. 160] Although it is true that garbage has been held not to be goods or personal property within the meaning of constitutional provisions and statutes governing common carriers, see, e.g., Visco v. State, 95 Ariz. 154, 388 P.2d 155; Arizona Service Co. v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 2 Ariz.App. 563, 410 P.2d 681; Fairchild v. United Service Corp., 52 N.M. 289, 197 P.2d 875, other courts have reached a contrary result. See, e.g., Masgai v. Public Service Commission of Pennsylvania, 124...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Worrell Enterprises, Inc., No. 901664
...to make corrective amendments evinces legislative acquiescence in the Attorney General's interpretation. Browning-Ferris v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 157, 161, 300 S.E.2d 603, 605-06 (1983); Deal v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 618, 622, 299 S.E.2d 346, 348 (1983); see Albemarle County v. Marshall, Cl......
-
Little v. Dominion Transmission, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:14–cv–00060.
...amendments evinces legislative acquiescence in the Attorney General's view." Id. (quoting Browning–Ferris, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 157, 300 S.E.2d 603, 605–06 (1983) ).7 138 F.Supp.3d 707Despite the plain language of § 56–49.01 and the Attorney General's opinion, the Littles neve......
-
National Serv-All, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, SERV-AL
...property, and motor carrier regulation, at least in part, relates to road maintenance. See Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Commonwealth (1983), 225 Va. 157, 161, 300 S.E.2d 603, 605 ("The critical factor in this operation is the service performed in collecting and disposing of the waste, not ......
-
Cahaly v. LaRosa, Civil Action No. 6:13–cv–00775–JMC.
...of that construction of the statute.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Browning–Ferris, Inc. v. Virginia, 225 Va. 157, 300 S.E.2d 603, 605–06 (1983) (“The legislature is presumed to have had knowledge of the Attorney General's interpretation of the statutes, and it......
-
Taylor v. Worrell Enterprises, Inc., No. 901664
...to make corrective amendments evinces legislative acquiescence in the Attorney General's interpretation. Browning-Ferris v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 157, 161, 300 S.E.2d 603, 605-06 (1983); Deal v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 618, 622, 299 S.E.2d 346, 348 (1983); see Albemarle County v. Marshall, Cl......
-
Little v. Dominion Transmission, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:14–cv–00060.
...amendments evinces legislative acquiescence in the Attorney General's view." Id. (quoting Browning–Ferris, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 157, 300 S.E.2d 603, 605–06 (1983) ).7 138 F.Supp.3d 707Despite the plain language of § 56–49.01 and the Attorney General's opinion, the Littles neve......
-
National Serv-All, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, SERV-AL
...property, and motor carrier regulation, at least in part, relates to road maintenance. See Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Commonwealth (1983), 225 Va. 157, 161, 300 S.E.2d 603, 605 ("The critical factor in this operation is the service performed in collecting and disposing of the waste, not ......
-
Cahaly v. LaRosa, Civil Action No. 6:13–cv–00775–JMC.
...of that construction of the statute.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Browning–Ferris, Inc. v. Virginia, 225 Va. 157, 300 S.E.2d 603, 605–06 (1983) (“The legislature is presumed to have had knowledge of the Attorney General's interpretation of the statutes, and it......