In re Application of Union Pacific Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1943
• Docket Number: 7041
• Citation: 64 Idaho 597,134 P.2d 1073
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT, TO ABANDON CERTAIN TRAIN SERVICE BETWEEN CACHE JUNCTION, UTAH, AND PRESTON, IDAHO, AND BETWEEN OGDEN, UTAH, AND MALAD, IDAHO. [1]
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

134 P.2d 1073

64 Idaho 597

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT, TO ABANDON CERTAIN TRAIN SERVICE BETWEEN CACHE JUNCTION, UTAH, AND PRESTON, IDAHO, AND BETWEEN OGDEN, UTAH, AND MALAD, IDAHO. ^[1]

No. 7041

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 26, 1943

RAILROAD-DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE.

1. On application by railroad to abandon passenger service on branch lines and to substitute in lieu thereof mixed trains consisting of passenger and baggage cars on existing freight trains, burden rested on railroad to show that proposed service for passengers would be adequate, efficient, just and reasonable. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302.)

2. The Supreme Court took judicial notice of the existence of paved highways practically paralleling railroad lines.

3. In reviewing order of the Public Utilities Commission denying application of railroad to discontinue passenger trains on branch line and to substitute in lieu thereof mixed trains consisting of a passenger car and a baggage car on its existing freight trains, it was necessary to consider whether operation of passenger trains at a loss justified discontinuance thereof when earnings of entire system reflected no deficit. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302; Const., art. 11 secs. 5, 6.)

4. The fact that one branch of railroad's service reflects a loss, and at the same time, the entire earnings of the system reflect a substantial profit, is not decisive of railroad's duty under statute and constitution to furnish to the public adequate and reasonable service. (I.C.A., sec 59-302; Const., art. 11, secs. 5, 6.)

5. If passenger service furnished by railroad is in all respects adequate, efficient, just and reasonable as required by statute, it is neither just nor reasonable to impose an unreasonable and unjust economic loss on the railroad, and indirectly, on the public, to require unnecessary and useless expenditures. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302; Const., art. 11, secs. 5, 6.)

6. On application by railroad to abandon passenger service on branch line and to substitute in lieu thereof mixed trains consisting of passenger and baggage cars on existing freight trains, it was necessary to consider limited public use of passenger service, expense and net loss to railroad in operation of passenger trains, available passenger service furnished by another railroad paralleling the railroad on which passenger trains were sought to be discontinued, bus service, and paved highways. (I.C.A., sec 59-302; Const., art. 11, secs. 5, 6.)

7. Where total revenue from passenger trains over railroad's branch line for 18 months was $11,473.80 as against an expense of $23,063.46, there was a negligible use of the passenger train service by the public, and there were adequate and efficient means of transportation over another railroad and by bus service, Public Utilities Commission erred in denying railroad's application to discontinue passenger trains and to substitute in lieu thereof mixed trains consisting of a passenger car and baggage car on existing freight trains. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302; Const., art 11, secs. 5, 6.)

8. During emergency because of the war, inconvenience of public because of discontinuance of passenger trains on railroad was subordinate to national defense. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302; Const., art. 11, secs. 5, 6.)

9. In determining whether patronage justifies expense of operation of passenger trains on railroad's branch line, it is proper to consider expense of furnishing passenger service, but that is not the most important question, and the controlling question is the necessity and reasonableness of the service to the public. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302; Const., art. 11, secs. 5, 6.)

10. Inasmuch as a railroad is bound to carry both passengers and freight, and duties and liabilities of railroad to passengers riding on freight and passenger trains are different, railroad is obliged to furnish and operate passenger trains separate from its freight trains for accommodation of passengers, if economic loss is not unjust and unreasonable. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302; Const., art. 11, secs. 5, 6.)

11. By the running of a mixed train consisting of freight and passenger cars, a railroad does not discharge its duty to the public of furnishing transportation to passengers. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302; Const., art. 11, secs. 5, 6.)

12. Where system of railroads under one management is paying, and railroad is solvent and prosperous, it cannot escape performance of its charter duty of furnishing transportation over one portion of its road by showing that such portion does not pay, when all parts of the system are so interwoven that an accurate ascertainment of the profits of any one portion of the road is impracticable. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302; Const., art. 11, secs. 5, 6.)

13. In considering question of whether railroad should be compelled to continue operation of a branch line, entire revenues of the system are to be taken into account, and not merely the direct return of the branch line itself. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302; Const., art. 11, secs. 5, 6.)

14. The Supreme Court was justified in taking judicial notice that, due to the war, operation of motor-propelled vehicles was limited to a minimum, and that passenger automobiles were being practically eliminated.

15. The Public Utilities Commission was justified and had the duty on application by railroad to abandon passenger service on branch lines and to substitute in lieu thereof mixed trains consisting of passenger and baggage cars on existing freight trains, to consider the inconvenience the public would suffer by reason of such change in service by transmitting mail, express, and baggage, as well as passengers on the same train. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302; Const., art. 11, secs. 5, 6.)

16. Action of Public Utilities Commission in denying railroad's right to discontinue passenger trains on branch lines and to substitute in lieu thereof mixed trains consisting of a passenger car and a baggage car on existing freight trains, was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and was not set aside by the Supreme Court on appeal, though service was operated at a loss, where discontinuance of passenger trains would leave public practically without railroad passenger service, and with only a minimum in bus service, operation of motor vehicles was seriously restricted because of the war, and operation of railroad's entire system showed profit. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302; Const., art. 11, secs. 5, 6.)

17. The Public Utilities Commission is vested with discretionary power in acting on railroad's application to discontinue passenger trains on branch lines and to substitute in lieu thereof mixed trains consisting of passenger cars and baggage cars on existing freight trains, and in absence of abuse of such power, the Supreme Court is not justified in setting aside commission's order. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302; Const., art. 11, secs. 5, 6.)

18. No fixed rule can be applied in determining whether railroad is entitled to discontinue passenger trains on branch lines and to substitute in lieu thereof mixed trains consisting of passenger cars and baggage cars on existing freight trains, and each case must be considered in the light of all facts. (I.C.A., sec. 59-302; Const., art. 11, secs. 5, 6.)

19. Where Public Utilities Commission issued order which was duly served on railroad to appear and show cause, and offer testimony as to why passenger trains should not be continued on branch lines, and pursuant to such order railroad appeared, a hearing was duly had, and testimony was taken without objections on part of the state or protestants, and controversy was decided by Commission as effectively as if railroad had instituted proceedings under statute, Commission had jurisdiction to grant railroad relief notwithstanding railroad's failure to comply with statute. (I.C.A., sec. 59-307.)

Appeal from Public Utilities Commission of Idaho.

From order of Public Utilities Commission requiring continuance of railroad passenger service on branch lines and from order denying petition for rehearing, Union Pacific Railroad Company appeals. Reversed in part and sustained in part.

Order of the Commission reversed as to the Preston-Cashe Junction, and sustained as to the Malad Branch. Costs awarded to respondents.

George H. Smith, H. B. Thompson and L. H. Anderson for appellant.

The expense or cost of furnishing transportation service must be taken into consideration in determining the reasonableness of the order of the Public Utilities Commission, and whether or not the patronage justifies the expense. (Washington, ex rel., Ore. R. & N. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U.S. 516, 56 L.Ed. 863; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Railway Commission, 237 U.S. 220, 59 L.Ed. 926, 931; Re Southern Pacific Co. (N. Mex.) 32 P.2d 814.)

The state has no power to compel the railroad to furnish service at a loss, or without compensation that is reasonable and just. (Chicago, M., St. P. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 274 U.S. 344, 71 L.Ed. 1085; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U.S. 585, 595, 59 L.Ed. 735.)

When the returns for the services rendered by a public service corporation are insufficient to pay the expenses of furnishing the services, there has ceased to be a public demand for the service. (Nichols, Public Ctilities Service and Discrimination, p. 371; State of South Carolina v. Jack (4th Cir.) 145 F. 281, 287; Moore v. Lewisburg & R. E. Ry Co. (W. Va.) 93 S.E. 762, 765.)

A carrier is required to maintain only adequate, efficient and reasonable service, and in determining what constitutes reasonable service regard must be had to the patronage and cost to the carrier, and the other transportation facilities and where only a few passengers per day patronize the service there has ceased to be a public demand for the...