Penn Central Transp. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

• Decision Date: 03 July 1973
• Docket Number: No. 73-54,73-54
• Citation: 298 N.E.2d 587,64 O.O.2d 60,35 Ohio St.2d 97
• Parties: , 64 O.O.2d 60 PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO., Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of Ohio, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 97

35 Ohio St.2d 97

298 N.E.2d 587, 64 O.O.2d 60

PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO., Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of Ohio, Appellee.

No. 73-54.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

July 3, 1973.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio is a creature of the General Assembly and may exercise no jurisdiction beyond that conferred by statute. (Toledo v. Pub. Util. Comm., 135 Ohio St. 57, 19 N.E.2d 162; Akron & Barbeton Belt Rd. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 165 Ohio St. 316, 135 N.E.2d 400; Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 16 Ohio St.2d 60, 242 N.E.2d 577; Ohio Bus Line v. Pub. Util. Comm., 29 Ohio St.2d 222, 280 N.E.2d 907, approved and followed.)

2. The obligations imposed by R.C. 4959.01 and 4959.11 fall directly upon railroads and do not grant a specific right of enforcement to the Public Utilities Commission.

3. Where the Public Utilities Commission orders the mandatory performance by a railroad of the obligations imposed by R.C. 4959.01 and 4959.11, it assumes a power of injunctive relief exceeding its statutory jurisdiction, and such order constitutes an unreasonable and unlawful exericse of the commission's discretion.

On June 9, 1970, L. F. Romine and D. M. Romine, the operators of two farms bordering on the north side of a Penn Central right of way, filed a complaint by letter with the Public Utilities Commission, alleging that a problem existed between the Penn Central Transportation Company, appellant herein, and the complainant operators. The complaint states that the fencebetween the adjoining farms and the right of way is in disrepair; that the drainage ditch along the north side of the right of way is nearly full of muck and brush; that the brush has grown so tall and large that it is shading a considerable area, causing loss of crops and pasture, and providing a sanctuary for groundhogs; and that obnoxious weeds are permitted to grow on the railroad's property.

The Public Utilities Commission ordered that the matter be processed as a formal complaint. A public hearing was had before an attorney-examiner for the commission in November 1970. The examiner's report concluded that the matter was properly before the commission pursuant to R.C. 4905.04, 4905.05, 4907.08 and 4959.01 and Section 1.22 of the Rules and Regulations of the Public Utilities Commission, and that the commission had jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues presented in the complaint. The examiner concluded that the evidence introduced by the complainants proved the existence of an excessive amount of weeds, brush and vegetation along the railroad right of way, resulting in a blockage of the proper and natural drainage from the complainants' property. The examiner also determined that the commission had authority to order the appellant to cooperate with the complainants in alleviating the drainage conditions complained of, and so recommended.

Appellant filed exceptions to the attorney-examiner's report, including an objection to the commission's jurisdiction.

On September 28, 1972, the commission issued its opinion and order, overruling appellant's objection and ordering appellant to destroy and remove the weeds and brush on its property in the area of the complaint. The parties were accorded a period of 60 days within which, in cooperation with each other, to work out differences between them.

In response to the appellant's application for rehearing, the commission, on November 24, 1972, issued a second entry, reaffirming its jurisdiction of the matter and reiterating its order to Penn Central, but without affirming the 60-day accord granted the parties.

From that order, the appellant aggeals to this court.

Grey K. Nelson, Thomas R. Skulina and Alex L. Fricke, Cleveland, for appellant.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Walter E. Carson, Columbus, for appellee.

CORRIGAN, Justice.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction to order a railroad to destroy and remove weeds and brush from its right of way upon the complaint of the operator of an adjoining farm that such conditions have an adverse effect upon the operation of his farm.

It is well settled in Ohio that the Public Utilities Commission is a creature of the General Assembly and may exercise no jurisdiction beyond that conferred by statute. Toledo v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1939), 135 Ohio St. 57, 19 N.E.2d 162; Akron & Barberton Belt Rd. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1956),165 Ohio St. 316, 135 N.E.2d 400; Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1968), 16 Ohio St. 2d...