Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. La Follette
| Citation | 43 Wis.2d 631,169 N.W.2d 441 |
| Decision Date | 29 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 102,102 |
| Parties | CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RY. CO. et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bronson C. LA FOLLETTE, individually and as Atty. Gen. of the state of Wisconsin, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Brotherhood of Locomotive, Firemen & Enginemen et al., Intervening Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
This is an action for declaratory judgment. The complaint prays for a judgment declaring the so-called 'Full-Crew Law' unconstitutional insofar as it requires a fireman in the engine crew of railroad freight trains. That part of the 'Full-Crew Law' regulating passenger trains is not challenged. The complaint also asks that the Public Service Commission, the Attorney General, and the District Attorney for Dane county be enjoined from enforcing the penal provisions of the statute.
The complaint sets forth three causes of action as bases for declaring the challenged statutes unconstitutional: (1) The requirement of a fireman in the engine crew denies the plaintiff-railroads due process of law; (2) the fireman requirement is an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce; and (3) the fireman requirement denies the plaintiff-railroads equal protection of the laws.
Due process and equal protection of the laws are guaranteed to all persons by sec. 1 of the Fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and by secs. 1, 13 and 22 of art. I of the Wisconsin Constitution.
The complaint was originally challenged by demurrer. This court affirmed the order of the trial court overruling the demurrer (Chicago & N.W.R. Co. v. La Follette (1965), 27 Wis.2d 505, 135 N.W.2d 269). The case was sent back to the trial court for a factual hearing as to the nature and scope of the fireman's duties under present day conditions insofar as they apply to the constitutional aspects of the mandatory fireman requirement of the statutes in question. The trial took forty-two days and resulted in a record of over 10,000 pages and 369 exhibits.
The plaintiffs in this action are eight interstate railroad companies, all of whom operate more than 10 miles of route within the state, outside of yard limits.
They are as follows: 1
The Chicago & North Western Railway Co., (hereinafter the C. & N.W.), which is basically a midwestern railroad, has the greatest amount of trackage in this state, approximately 2,500 miles or nearly 25 percent of its entire trackage. The C. & N.W. divides its operation into four divisions. Two of these divisions have headquarters in Wisconsin, i.e., the Wisconsin division at Milwaukee and the Lakeshore division at Green Bay. The C. & N.W. operates a substantial number of all types of freight trains over the entire state of Wisconsin every day. In addition, in maintains switch engines at 26 separate locations through the state. In 1965, the C. & N.W. expended nearly $2,500,000 for Wisconsin firemen.
The second most important railroad operating in Wisconsin is the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company (hereinafter the Milwaukee Road), which has approximately 1,600 miles of trackage in this state. This is just under 15 percent of the total trackage operated by the Milwaukee Road in the 12 states in which it runs trains. In Wisconsin the Milwaukee Road has three operating divisions, two located in Milwaukee and the third at La Crosse. One of the Milwaukee divisions is principally a yard operation, having in excess of 70 switch engines working. The Milwaukee Road also maintains switch engines at 12 other locations in Wisconsin. During 1965, firemen cost the Milwaukee Road for work in Wisconsin approximately $1,850,000.
The third most important Wisconsin railroad is the plaintiff Soo Line, which operates 1,437 miles of trackage in Wisconsin, or about 30 percent of its entire lines. The Soo operates only freight service in Wisconsin, and the cost to it for Wisconsin firemen in 1965 was $1,330,255.
The fourth plaintiff is the Green Bay and Western Railroad which operates 248 miles of tracks in Wisconsin, with an additional two miles in the state of Minnesota. Basically, this railroad operates trains between Green Bay and East Winona, Minnesota, and between Green Bay and Kewaunee, Wisconsin, where pickups and deliveries are made from the Chesapeake and Ohio car ferries which cross Lake Michigan and dock at Kewaunee. The cost of firemen to the Green Bay and Western for work in Wisconsin in 1965 was $187,652.
The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad operates only 220 miles of trackage in Wisconsin. Its lines run along the Mississippi river from the state line to the twin cities, crossing the river at Prescott, Wisconsin. The Burlington Road is a very busy road and operates passenger trains and a substantial number of freight trains on its Wisconsin tracks. In the year 1965, firemen and freight service in Wisconsin cost the Burlington $261,395.
The sixth plaintiff is the Northern Pacific, which operates only 85 miles of track in Wisconsin. The Northern Pacific operates freight trains between Duluth and Ashland, and also during the ore season it runs ore trains from Minnesota into Superior. The Northern Pacific operates switch engines at three different yard locations in the Superior area. The cost of Wisconsin firemen to the Northern Pacific in 1965 was $110,158.
The Illinois Central operates only 45 miles of track in Wisconsin, which is a turn-around way freight between Freeport, Illinois and Madison. Firemen on this run cost the Illinois Central $12,760 for work in Wisconsin in 1965.
The final plaintiff is the Great Northern Railroad, which has only 38 miles of track in this state. Its Wisconsin operations are limited to the area around Superior where it has two yards. One of these yards deals exclusively with iron ore operations; however, both yards are quite busy, resulting in a firemen cost to the Great Northern for Wisconsin operations in 1965 of nearly $450,000.
All of these railroads operate in several states (except the Green Bay & Western) without firemen in freight service. Most states do not have 'full-crew' laws and the size and composition of the crew is determined by collective bargaining agreements or rules and orders of regulatory bodies. 2 The defendants are the Attorney General, the Public Service Commission and its members, and the District Attorney of Dane county, all being public officials charged with the enforcement of the penal provisions of the full-crew law.
The intervening defendants are the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainment. Both unions are headquartered in Clevland, Ohio, and represent their members for collective bargaining purposes throughout the United States. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen represents practically all of the firemen in the nation and about one percent of the engineers. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers represents most of the engineers but it did not seek to intervene.
The sections of the Wisconsin 'full-crew' law that are challenged as being unconstitutional are as follows:
'192.25 Railroad train crews. * * *
'(2) Freight Crew. No railroad operating more than 10 miles of route shall run outside of yard limits any freight train propelled by any form of energy of 3 cars or more with less than a full train crew consisting of an engineer, a fireman, a conductor and 2 brakemen.
'(3) * * *
experience in train or engine service and who shall have passed standard examination on book of rules and has qualified as a conductor or an engineer; except that such pilot need not be used if one is not available when it is necessary to run engine to the relief of an injured person or to raise a blockade of traffic.
Basically, there are three types of railroad freight operations involved in this dispute over the statutory fireman requirement: Way freight service (sometimes referred to as local or switch run service), through freight service, and yard or switch engine service. Way freight and through freight are referred to as road service. A fourth category is a single engine, without cars attached, operating outside yard limits.
Generally, way freight involves the setting out and picking up of cars between the yards and outlying industrial areas. Way freights are usually comparatively short runs with fewer cars and usually one engine. They deliver cars to their destination and pickup and assemble cars to become part of a through freight.
A through freight is a much larger train consisting of one or more locomotives (sometimes as many as nine), and from 30 to 200 cars. A through freight has runs of considerable distance and is usually on a time schedule. It does pick up and set off cars in yards but does a limited amount of switching. A way freight, in a sense, complements a through freight.
Sec. 192.25(2), Stats., requires a five-man crew for in-road...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wis. Legislature v. Palm
-
Buse v. Smith
... ... for Wisconsin Education Association argued; Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., and Allan P. Hubbard, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief, for respondents ... ' 11 ... The rule was repeated in Chicago & N.W.R. Co. v. State (1906), 128 Wis. 553, 661, 108 N.W. 557. In State ex rel. Owen v. Donald, ... ...
-
State v. Interstate Blood Bank, Inc.
... ... with anti-coagulant and cooling, to its sister corporation, Interstate Blood Bank, Inc., of Chicago, and then to points throughout the north central states. Defendant is permitted to operate under a ... Page 916 ... of the same effect in both constitutions. Chicago & N.W. Ry. v. La Follette, supra, 43 Wis.2d p. 643, 169 N.W.2d 441 ... The police power of the state is ... ...
-
Noranda Exploration, Inc. v. Ostrom
... ... Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, ... M.E. OSTROM, State Geologist, Bronson C. La Follette, ... Attorney General, and Carroll D. Besadny, ... Secretary of Department of Natural ... State v. Jackman, 60 Wis.2d 700, 704-05, 211 N.W.2d 480 (1973); Chicago & N.W. Ry. v. LaFollette, 43 Wis.2d 631, 646-47, 169 N.W.2d 441 (1969). Under the police power ... ...