Chauffeurs License

[tranquility]

I would have responded sooner but I had to rush to the Secretary of State's office before it closed to get a chauffeur's license. I plan on driving a friend to work tomorrow.

Following is information about Michigan's carpooling and carpool lots. Carpooling is a great saver of energy - and, best of all, no chauffeur license is required!

http://www.michigan.gov/micommute/0,4623,7-214-53729_55349---,00.html
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9615_11228_11234---,00.html

Wouldn't that fall under the:

A person operating a motor vehicle for a volunteer program who only receives reimbursement for vehicle operating costs.

exemption?

Here we have:

give me a little extra

I agree we could argue, depending on how little, if it is reimbursement for vehicle operating costs.

I didn't see where a chauffeurs license was not required. The concept of a carpool did lead me to a case, however.
Pugh v. Zefi, 812 NW 2d 789 - Mich: Court of Appeals 2011

Meadows drove plaintiff and a colleague to work in his vehicle, in exchange for which, plaintiff gave Meadows approximately $20 a week. Meadows maintained that he was not hired and that he had never entered into a contract by which money would be exchanged for his driving services. Instead, Meadows maintained, 791*791 he was involved in a carpool. Meadows argued that he never charged or billed plaintiff for his driving services, but that plaintiff would occasionally "chip in" money to help pay for gasoline. Meadows stated that any money he collected "was used primarily for gas and was not earned income." Plaintiff had no driver's license and thus never took turns driving.

Defendant argued before the circuit court that plaintiff had "hired ... Meadows... to drive her around" and that she was accordingly not entitled to underinsured-motorist benefits. Defendant maintained that this was unequivocally a "carry for charge situation," and not a carpool situation. The circuit court ruled that the arrangement could fit into the definition of a carpool and therefore denied defendant's motion for partial summary disposition.

There is great discussion as to what a "carpool" is because the insurance policy at issue only used the term without definition. Read the case, the importance of little things is interesting. One thing that gives FlyingRon's idea some support is:

Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Mevorah, 149 Misc.2d 1011, 1013-1015, 566 N.Y.S.2d 842 (1991), the court considered a situation in which a driver regularly drove several individuals to work, always in the driver's own van. The Mevorah court explained that

a fair and reasonable definition of the term "share-the-expense" car pool extends to the situation herein, wherein [the driver] traveled to work on a daily basis and transported a small group of approximately eight regular riders, friends and nonfriends, over a period of time, charging them a sufficient amount to cover the expenses incurred for gas, tolls, insurance and other expenses incident to their use of the van. [Id. at 1015, 566 N.Y.S.2d 842.]
The court further noted that the driver "did not solicit the general public as passengers on her van, and her uncontroverted testimony indicated that her use of the van was not a profit-making or motivated enterprise."

However, to our "little extra":

Similarly, in General Accident Ins. Co. of America v. Gonzales, 86 F.3d 673, 674 (C.A.7, 1996), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit considered an arrangement in which one man drove four of his coworkers to work each day, always in his own car, for a daily fee of $5 per passenger. The Gonzales court observed that even though the driver charged his passengers for the trip, this charge "did not exceed [the driver's] actual expenses" and was not even enough to "cover the expenses borne by [the driver]." Id. at 678-679. The Gonzales court ultimately concluded that the arrangement in question was "a `share-the-expense car pool' type of arrangement" and "thus an exception to the policy exclusion against carrying persons for a fee." Id. at 679.

The footnotes pointed to Thomas v. Tomczyk, 369 NW 2d 219 - Mich: Court of Appeals 1985 for what a carpool is. I did not find a good summary there, but did find the discussion and a footnote from the original trial court not certainly excluding the OP from "carpool" treatment.

With facts of:

On December 18, 1981, David Thomas and Thomas Gass were injured in an automobile accident while riding as passengers in an automobile driven by defendant Michael Tomczyk and insured by MEEMIC. All three youths were students at Michigan Technological University in Houghton and were on their way home to the Flint area for the holidays. It is undisputed that they were previously unacquainted with each other and that Thomas and Gass had responded to a notice posted by Tomczyk on the "student ride board". Each paid Tomczyk $25 for a round-trip ride.

The court found:

The issue here is one of priority of coverage among no-fault insurers and not one of coverage. The primary goal of the Legislature in enacting the Michigan no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq.; MSA 24.13101 et seq., was to ensure prompt and adequate compensation to parties injured in automobile accidents by requiring them to first look to their own insurers. Shavers v Attorney General, 402 Mich 554, 578-579; 267 NW2d 72 (1978); Nash v DAIIE, 120 Mich App 568, 571-572; 327 NW2d 521 (1982), lv den 417 Mich 1088 (1983). Thus, an injured person is generally required to seek compensation from his own no-fault insurer even where that person's insured vehicle is not involved in the accident. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co v Sentry Ins, 91 Mich App 109, 114; 283 NW2d 661 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 911 (1979).

One exception to this general rule is provided under MCL 500.3114(2); MSA 24.13114(2):

"A person suffering accidental bodily injury while an operator or a passenger of a motor vehicle operated in the business of transporting passengers shall receive the personal protection insurance benefits to which the person is entitled from the insurer of the motor vehicle."

Plaintiffs rely upon this exception in arguing that coverage should be provided under the policy issued by MEEMIC.

We are not persuaded that the Legislature intended by its enactment of � 14(2) of the no-fault act to abandon the general rule of coverage where college students pay other college students for the privilege of carpooling home for school holidays. We agree with the trial court that under the 242*242 particular facts of these cases, plaintiffs were not passengers of "a motor vehicle operated in the business of transporting passengers". We thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[2] At the hearing, the trial court first confirmed that no jury demand had been entered and then stated:

"Okay. The Court then having the power in this case to make findings of fact, will find that this is not any business. And I'll make a specific statement that, it wasn't the primary function of the driver to carry passengers for hirer [sic], he's a student, as far as I can tell. And it is not the primary purpose of the vehicle to carry passengers for hirer [sic], it just happened that incidental to coming home, it was convenient to take on passengers, and I don't really blame him for trying to make a little extra money to cover the cost of gas, that's a long ride up the Upper Peninsula. And so the entry of a judgment in favor of MEEMIC is granted in both cases."

With all that, I refer anyone who really cares back to my post at #2.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan
A friend wants to pay me to drive them somewhere. Do I need a Chauffeurs License for this?
My friend wants me to drive him somewhere and said he'll pay for the gas and wanted to give me a little extra as well.

Based strictly on what you have posted here, jtjumper, the answer is NO. You do not need a chauffeurs license in Michigan to drive a friend somewhere, even if your friend pays for gas and wants to give you a little extra as well.

If you have any additional facts to add, this might change the answer but, again, given what you have given us, the answer is no.

 

[tranquility]

jtjumper, you may read the law as provided by me for yourself or rely on conclusory statements without support. You know why you asked. If a research project, well played. If not, read post #2 for a better conclusory statement based on the law.

 

[quincy]

Are you operating a taxi or limousine?

Your question really cannot be answered. Michigan would probably say yes. Uber would not require it. (But would accept such an "enhanced" license.)

I don't think the state will find out about it, but don't think that should be the criteria. The real question is if you are a tax or limousine. There, your guess is as good as mine. (Although probably not a taxi.)

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_limo_FAQ_05_2009_278066_7.pdf?20140806142541
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-act-271-of-1990.pdf

tranquility, I am not sure what you are trying to prove with all of your links and case cites to inapplicable Michigan laws, or why you insist that the post of yours that I have quoted above could possibly answer the question that jtjumper asked.

Nowhere in jtjumper's post is there any indication that s/he drives a taxi or a limousine or is a driver for hire - and if jtjumper was driving a taxi or a limousine, s/he would already have a chauffeur's license so the question would never have come up.

True, the post had a dearth of information but what WAS said by jtjumper is simply this: "A friend wants me to drive them somewhere. Do I need a Chauffeur's License for this?" The answer to that question, with no other details added, is NO.

Michigan had some proposals floated about last year that would require chauffeur licenses for "transportation network companies" like Uber and Lyft, but these proposals have so far gone nowhere. Right now in Michigan, all an Uber or Lyft driver needs to drive passengers from point A to point B is a valid drivers license and auto insurance (and to pass a background check). Even carpool drivers do not require a chauffeur's license. Why you could possibly think that a person who drives a friend someplace, in exchange for gas or a little extra, would require a chauffeur's license (in a state that you apparently know little about) is beyond me.

Also, for your information, an "enhanced" drivers license is used as a federally-recognized identification card to prove citizenship for the purposes of travel to and from Canada or Mexico or Bermuda or Caribbean nations. It can be used in place of a passport. I am not sure why you mentioned it or what it has to do with chauffeur licenses.

If jtjumper wants to come back and add some details, perhaps some of what you posted might have some relevance. Right now, however, not so much.

 

[tranquility]

Michigan and many local governments in Michigan have issued letters of non-compliance to the ride share companies. There is litigation as to if the Limousine Transportation Act applies to services like Uber or Lyft. The "problem" for some proposed law changes (At least in one that would specifically remove the ride share from the Limousine Act and regulate it on its own.) is:

Under current law, most for-hire drivers are subject to the Limousine Transportation Act,
although metered vehicles identified as taxis or taxicabs are not. The act says, in part, "A
person shall not violate or evade the provisions of this act through any device or
arrangement." The act defines a limousine as a for-hire vehicle with a seating capacity of
15 or less. (For-hire vehicles with a seating capacity of more than 15 are considered buses
and regulated separately.) However, transportation network companies (TNCs), such as
Uber and Lyft, argue that because their business model is fundamentally different from a
traditional taxi or other vehicle-for-hire model, they fall outside the act.
In 2013, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) sent letters of noncompliance
to Uber and to Lyft, alleging noncompliance with the Limousine Act in multiple areas,
including not registering with MDOT and not properly insuring and inspecting vehicles used
to transport passengers. However, no enforcement action appears to have been taken.
Uber and Lyft currently operate in several metropolitan areas in Michigan. These companies
say because they only own and operate the platform through which rides are arranged, rather
than the vehicle or driver, they should be regulated differently than other for-hire
transportation entities, such as traditional taxi cab and limousine companies. Legislation
has been introduced to provide that separate regulation.
Some municipalities, such as the cities of Lansing and East Lansing, have entered into joint
operating agreements allowing companies such as Uber and Lyft to operate in their
communities. If this proposed legislation is signed into law, these operating agreements
would be superseded by the regulations contained within the bill.

The state has not said ride sharing (transportation network companies) without following the current Act is legal. They just have not enforced it. (Although MDOT seems to try at times.) When you look at the legislation, there is not a lot of difference to the current law other than adding a definition to either separate TNC from Limousine treatment with specific regulation for them or to make sure it is included.

That rather makes me think the state and MDOT feel they are Limousine but that there are policy reasons against treating them as such.

tranquility, I am not sure what you are trying to prove with all of your links and case cites to inapplicable Michigan laws, or why you insist that the post of yours that I have quoted above could possibly answer the question that jtjumper asked.

If they are inapplicable, you must certainly have some reason other than your say so as to why that is the case.

 

[quincy]

... If they are inapplicable, you must certainly have some reason other than your say so as to why that is the case.

Inapplicable because jtjumper has not said he holds himself out to the public as a "for hire" vehicle.

All jtjumper has said is that he wants to drive a friend somewhere and this friend wants to pay for the gas and perhaps give jtjumper a little extra for his time - and this does not require a chauffeur's license. Otherwise, everyone in Michigan would require a chauffeur's license and I can assure you, this is not the case.

I am sorry you are going to so much trouble locating Michigan laws and articles and whatnot. The laws on TNCs are changing in some places in Michigan, and legislators are attempting to change them statewide, but no change in the laws on TNCs seems to address jtjumper's question (at least, as written).

That said, your efforts are appreciated (albeit to me a bit puzzling).

 

[tranquility]

Inapplicable because jtjumper has not said he holds himself out to the public as a "for hire" vehicle.

All jtjumper has said is that he wants to drive a friend somewhere and this friend wants to pay for the gas and perhaps give jtjumper a little extra for his time.

I am sorry you are going to so much trouble locating Michigan laws and articles and whatnot. The laws on TNCs are changing in some places in Michigan, and legislators are attempting to change them statewide, but no change in the laws on TNCs seems to address jtjumper's question (at least, as written).

That said, your efforts are appreciated (albeit to me a bit puzzling).

As already explained, from the Acts definitions:

(c) “For hire” means the remuneration or reward of any kind, paid or promised, either directly or indirectly

(j) “The public” means that part or portion of the general public which the limo carrier is ready, able,
willing, and equipped to serve.

But, your efforts at giving your opinion are certainly appreciated.