Elgin Coal Co. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 13 June 1969
• Docket Number: No. 18418.,18418.
• Citation: 411 F.2d 1043
• Parties: ELGIN COAL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

411 F.2d 1043 (1969)

ELGIN COAL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18418.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

June 13, 1969.

Sizer Chambliss, Chattanooga, Tenn., William M. Ables, Jr., South Pittsburg, Tenn., on brief, for appellant.

W. D. Spears, Chattanooga, Tenn., H. G. Breetz, R. W. Henriott, Louisville, Ky., on brief, for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, EDWARDS, and McCREE, Circuit Judges.

McCREE, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court dismissing appellant's suit because it had not previously applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission for relief. The only question presented is whether under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction such application is a prerequisite to the maintenance of this action in the District Court.

The facts as found by the District Judge are adopted.¹ Appellant is engaged in the business of marketing coal and maintains a tipple near Whitwell, Tennessee. Appellee is a railroad subject to the Interstate Commerce Act and transports appellant's coal from the tipple to the persons to whom it has been consigned. From some time in 1965 until February, 1968, appellee's regular train crews refused to provide service to the tipple because of the presence of certain persons near the siding which leads to it. These persons, retired miners receiving pension benefits from the welfare fund of the United Mine Workers of America, gathered at the siding each time a train entered it to protest the fact that appellant obtained coal from companies which were not under contract with the U.M.W. and, therefore, did not pay royalties into its welfare fund.

Although no threats were made against regular train crew members, they claimed that they had reason to fear for their safety if they picked up or delivered cars at the siding and their refusal to do so was supported by the railway brotherhoods. Appellee attempted, unsuccessfully, to persuade the regular crew members to service the tipple but it did not order them to do so or resort to disciplinary action against them for their refusal. Instead, an average of three times per week, it brought supervisory employees from Chattanooga to pick up and deliver cars at the siding. During this time, appellant requested the daily service which had previously been available to it and which was still furnished to other tipples in the area which were not the object of miners' protests.

On September 7, 1967, appellant sought an injunction in the District Court against the reduced service and damages for losses resulting from it, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 23.² The trial judge dismissed the action because it involved a question of the reasonableness of the service received by appellant and, therefore, should have been presented initially to the Interstate Commerce Commission under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Since the District Court's consideration of this case, the protest at the siding has ceased and daily service has been restored. However, appellant still seeks to recover damages for losses incurred during the interruption.

The principles underlying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction were enunciated in Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 370, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576 (1952):

The Court thus applied a principle, now firmly established, that in cases raising issues of fact not within the conventional experience of judges or cases requiring the exercise of administrative discretion, agencies created by Congress for regulating the subject matter should not be passed over. This is so even though the facts after they have been appraised by specialized competence serve as a premise for legal consequences to be judicially defined. Uniformity and consistency in the regulation of business entrusted to a particular agency are secured, and the limited functions of review by the judiciary are more rationally exercised, by preliminary resort for ascertaining and interpreting the circumstances underlying legal issues to agencies that are better equipped than courts by specialization, by insight gained through experience, and by more flexible procedure. 342 U.S. at 574-575, 72 S.Ct. at 494.

We agree with the District Court that this doctrine generally requires that the Commission make the initial determination whether rail service is reasonable. See Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Clark Brothers Coal Mining Co., 238 U.S. 456, 469, 35 S.Ct. 896, 59 L.Ed. 1406 (1915); Great Northern Railway Co. v. Merchants Elevator...