Greyhound Lines, Inc., Southern Greyhound Lines Division v. Mayo, 36397

• Decision Date: 14 February 1968
• Docket Number: No. 36397,36397
• Citation: Greyhound Lines, Inc., Southern Greyhound Lines Division v. Mayo, 207 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1968)
• Parties: GREYHOUND LINES, INC., SOUTHERN GREYHOUND LINES DIVISION, Petitioner, v. William T. MAYO, Jerry W. Carter and Edwin L. Mason, as and constituting the Florida Public Service Commission, Respondents.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 1

207 So.2d 1

GREYHOUND LINES, INC., SOUTHERN GREYHOUND LINES DIVISION, Petitioner, v.William T. MAYO, Jerry W. Carter and Edwin L. Mason, as and constituting the Florida Public Service Commission, Respondents.

No. 36397.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 14, 1968.

Wayne K. Ramsay, of Milam, Ramsay, Martin & Ade, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

Lewis Letteway, Tallahassee, James L. Graham, Titusville, and John Ruff, Tallahassee, for Florida Public Service Commission, respondent.

James E. Wharton, of Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson, Mesmer & Robbinson, Orlando, for Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., intervenor.

THORNAL, Justice.

By petition for certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Public Service Commission which requires the mutual honoring of tickets by common carriers of passengers.

We must decide whether the Commission has jurisdiction to promulgate the rule, and, if so, whether, in the instant case, it has met the essential requirements of law.

Greybound Lines, Inc., and Tamiami Trial Tours, Inc., are common carriers of passengers in Florida.They render a competitive service in some areas.In others they are noncompetitive.The respondent Commission regulates their intrastate operations.From 1938 until this dispute had its inception in 1959, the two carriers, by agreement, mutually honored each other's bus tickets.This simply meant that a passenger holding a ticket issued by one, could use it for transportation by the other between competitive points of travel.Under the voluntary arrangement it was not necessary to secure the issuance of a new ticket or obtain permission from either carrier.On November 4, 1959, after Tamiami had obtained a certificate to compete with Greyhound between Jacksonville and Miami, via Orlando, Greyhound announced discontinuance of ticket honoring for major points between Jacksonville, Miami and St. Petersburg.As of June 15, 1961, the approximate time when Tamiami commenced its Jacksonville-Orlando-Miami operation, Greyhound formally announced that it would no longer pay Tamiami for Greyhound tickets 'lifted' between these points.At this point the 'ticket-honoring' arrangement between the two carriers appears to have collapsed.

On February 6, 1963, the respondent Commission, by its order #5652, directed the two carriers to show cause why they were not complying with then Rule 310--5.47 which merely required an interchange of passengers.This order recited that 'this Commission has received numerous complaints from the traveling public' that the carriers were not honoring each other's tickets.On May 23, 1963, by its Order #5775, the respondent decided that its then existing rule did not cover the problem.On the same day, May 23, 1963, again reciting 'numerous complaints,' by its Order #5776, respondent initiated an investigation to determine whether a rule should be adopted to require the carriers to honor each other's tickets.The carriers were ordered to supply any available pertinent information.Three years and five months later, on October 24, 1966, after numerous hearings and arguments, the respondent entered it's order #7128--B which amends its Rule 310--5.47 to read as follows:

"1(a) Each regular common carrier of passengers shall interchange passengers with other like regular common carriers at points served by both and shall honor a passenger ticket issued by another such carrier and shall be compensated by such carrier for honoring its tickets on the terms and conditions as hereinafter prescribed.

"(b) The word 'interchange' as used hereinabove shall mean that each regular common carrier of passengers shall honor passenger tickets of all other such carriers between all points in Florida within the authority granted by the Commission to the honoring carrier.

"(c) All regular common carriers of passengers shall pay the carrier that honors such tickets when such ticket is submitted to the selling carrier in interline billing.

"(d) Failure to settle and pay interline accounts after reasonable demand will subject the offending carrier to citation by the Commission and imposition of such penalties as may be authorized by law and warranted by the facts."

By order #7515, entered March 16, 1967, the respondent denied Greyhound's petition for reconsideration of the last numbered order.

By the instant petition we have for review orders numbered 7128--B and 7515.The petitioner contends that the respondent had no jurisdiction to enter the orders, and even if it had the power, it has failed to exercise it in accord with the essential requirements of the law.

At the outset, it appears to us that the instant matter is more of a contest for customers between two competing carriers than an answer to any widespread public demand.The latter element may exist but it is not revealed by the record.Indeed, at an early hearing, the attorney for the Commission announced, 'Mr. Chairman, this whole business started with a complaint of one bus company against another that they were not following the rule in the book.'We do not hold that aspects of public convenience and necessity could not be involved in the current situation.We simply note that this record fails to present evidence of a widespread public demand for the service which has been required.

In response to Greyhound's contention that the Commission lacks jurisdiction in the premises, we hold that upon a proper showing of public necessity and convenience, the respondent Commission has the power to require the mutual honoring of passenger tickets.Fla.Const. Art. XVI, § 30, F.S.A., grants to the Legislature'full power to pass laws for the correction of abuses' and otherwise to regulate the charges and services of common carriers.By Fla.Stat. Ch. 323, F.S.A., the Auto Transportation Act, and other statutesthe Legislature has undertaken to exercise this constitutional function, largely through the medium of the respondent Commission.By Fla.Stat. § 323.07, F.S.A., the respondent is granted broad powers to fix rates, charges, classifications, services and operations of intrastate common carriers.When an auto transportation company commits its property to the public service as a condition to obtaining a certificate to operate, it subjects itself to the state's power to regulate in all matters affecting the company's relationship with the public.Admittedly, such regulations must be nonconfiscatory and founded in public need and convenience.However, the public welfare demands that the state's supervisory and regulatory powers over monopolies be broad and comprehensive.Fogarty Bros. Transfer, Inc. v. Boyd, 109 So.2d 883(Fla.1959).This logically follows from the proposition that every holder of a certificate of convenience and necessity issued by respondent enjoys a protected public monopoly or at least a guaranteed right to participate in all described transportation business accruing along its routes.This, of course, is a valuable right which cannot be prejudiced or divested arbitrarily.However, in all cases, when a paramount public interest is demonstrated, it must prevail...