Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Department of Public Utilities, Bd. of Public Utility Com'rs
Decision Date | 01 February 1954 |
Docket Number | No. A--62,A--62 |
Citation | 14 N.J. 411,102 A.2d 618 |
Parties | , 4 P.U.R.3d 482 PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COM'RS. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Raymond J. Lamb, Jersey City, for appellant (Emory, Langan & Lamb, Jersey City, attorneys; A. S. Schroeder of the Pennsylvania bar, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel; Charles W. Hutchinson and Samuel Lyon, Jersey City, on the brief).
John E. Toolan, Perth Amboy, for additional appellants (Toolan, Haney & Romond, Perth Amboy, attorneys).
John R. Sailer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent (Theodore D. Parsons, Atty. Gen., and Frank H. Sommer, Newark, attorneys).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is an appeal from an order of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners dated April 28, 1953; it has been certified to this court pursuant to R.R. 1:10. See 13 N.J. 430, 100 A.2d 215 (1953).
On the evening of February 6, 1951 there was a disastrous wreck on the Perth Amboy and Woodbridge branch of the Pennsylvania Railroad. Eighty-four lives were lost and approximately 860 persons were injured. Thereafter investigations were made by the Board of Public Utility Commissioners and the Attorney General. During its investigation the board conducted many hearings, which were participated in by representatives of the Pennsylvania, and in due course issued its Findings, Recommendations and Order (Docket No. 5473). On April 19, 1951 the Attorney-General issued his Report. These indicated that the train derailed as it moved onto a temporary runaround track located near the Woodbridge station and put in use for the first time on February 6th. The track was considered safe for a restricted speed and the Pennsylvania had issued its General Order No. 1806 which provided that 'Trains and engines must not exceed a speed of 25 miles per hour' at the designated location. Apparently this order had been posted on the Pennsylvania's bulletin boards in accordance with its operating rules and copies had been furnished to the train's engineman, fireman and conductor. However, there were no additional objective precautions designed to insure awareness and observance of the speed restriction. The automatic block signals were not used to indicate the restricted speed and no appropriate slow boards or speed markers were placed along the trackage. In the board's language: 'Entire dependence for complying with the speed restriction and for operating trains at reduced speed over the runaround at Woodbridge was placed in the General Order and on the retentiveness of the memory of the engineman.' In its specific findings the board stated that the engineman had failed to reduce the speed of the train to 25 miles an hour when approaching the runaround track; that the accident was caused by excessive speed of the train; and that there was a lack of uniformity in the railroad rules and practices relating to signals or slow boards indicating restricted speed areas. In its recommendations and order the board suggested that the Pennsylvania exercise closer supervision over the distribution of general orders and give consideration generally (1) to the use of makers and automatic block signals to indicate temporary speed restrictions, (2) the use of permanent speed restriction signs, and (3) the installation of an automatic train and speed control system. The Attorney-General's Report also concluded with recommendations and suggested the creation of a commission to study proposed signals and speed restrictions, requirements for examination of train personnel, operation, construction, maintenance and equipment and related matters.
Under date of July 13, 1951 the board addressed letters to the Pennsylvania and the other railroads operating in New Jersey which called a conference for the purpose of ascertaining (1) the adequacy of the physical examinations of enginemen and trainmen; (2) methods of obtaining closer supervision of the distribution of general orders, and (3) methods of bringing about greater uniformity in railroad practices, particularly those relating to the use of cautionary signals, markers and slow boards. The conference was held and ultimately the railroads, including the Pennsylvania, agreed to the following minimum practices: (1) physical examinations of train and engine road service employees not less than every two years; (2) employees in train and engine road service reporting sick to be reexamined if off for more than 30 days; (3) engineers and conductors to receipt for and carry copies of general orders; and (4) temporary slow order practice to provide for a signal at a proper distance in advance of the point of restriction, a second signal at the point of restriction, and a third signal indicating the end of the restricted territory. A letter confirming this agreement was sent by the railroads' representative to the board under date of September 12, 1951 and a further letter dated September 15, 1951 was sent directly by the Pennsylvania to the board.
Not being satisfied with the extent of the measures being voluntarily undertaken by the Pennsylvania and the other railroads, the board on November 7, 1951 issued orders to show cause in similar form and addressed individually to each of them. The order to the Pennsylvania (Docket No. 5847) directed it to appear before the board on December 12, 1951 and show cause why it should not be required to: (1) establish as minimum practice, physical examination of enginemen in road service at intervals of three months and of firemen in road service at intervals of six months; (2) adopt a rule requiring conductors, trainmen, enginemen and firemen in road service, upon resuming duties after an absence of 15 days or more, to be examined with respect to their knowledge of changes which have occurred in operating rules, time table instructions, or general orders, during their absence; (3) adopt a rule requiring enginemen and firemen in road service upon resuming duties after an absence of three months to be examined as to their knowledge of the physical characteristics of the road over which they will operate; (4) adopt the practice of controlling the automatic block signals to indicate temporary speed restrictions; (5) adopt the practice of installing markers or signs in advance of track affected by permanent speed restrictions; (6) adopt a rule requiring supervisory employees to verify that road service enginemen and conductors are in possession of and have read the general orders, and (7) subject motive power and other rolling stock to more comprehensive and intensive inspection. The hearing was held on December 12, 1951 and was continued on December 13 and 19. No witnesses were called by the board but five witnesses called by the Pennsylvania were duly examined. They included its chief medical examiner, general superintendent of transportation, general superintendent of telegraph, general superintendent of motor power of the eastern region and assistant mechanical engineer. In addition the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen introduced testimony by one of its representatives and by a member of the staff of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners.
The chief medical examiner testified with respect to proposal (1) relating to the physical examination of enginemen and firemen. All employees are subject to pre-employment examination; employees in the engine service are examined every two years before the age of 40 and every year thereafter; firemen are examined before promotion to enginemen and, if furloughed for more than 30 days, undergo further examination before being permitted to return to duty. In response to an inquiry as to why there was more frequent examination after 40 he said: 'It is at the age of forty when the degenerative processes begin to set in, and we think that then we should be on the lookout, at least at yearly intervals, to see what is going on in the individual.' He acknowledged that many industries now require periodic medical examinations of employees but stated that he knew of none where they were required at three month intervals. The most stringent he had heard of was a six-months' periodic examination of airplane pilots. He expressed the view that there was no need for more frequent examinations of engineers and firemen than those presently being given by the Pennsylvania. He did not testify as to practices on other railroads; in fact, their periodic examinations of enginemen and firemen vary considerably. One railroad examines its enginemen and firemen annually and most of the others examine enginemen annually and firemen biannually, or both classes biannually, with more frequent examinations for the older employees.
The superintendent of transportation testified with respect to proposal (2) relating to examination on changes in general orders after 15 days' absence, and proposal (3) relating to examination on physical characteristics of the road after three months' absence. He expressed the view that neither proposal would add to the safety or increase the efficiency of the railroad's operations. Pennsylvania's practice is to place general orders on bulletin boards which enginemen and conductors are required to examine when reporting to work. Enginemen instruct their firemen and conductors instruct their trainmen regarding the orders. Men report for work at various points of each of the three divisions of the railroad and there would be considerable expense and inconvenience if, after being absent for 15 days because of vacation or otherwise, they were required to be examined on general orders before one of the qualified rules examiners employed by the railroad. Under Pennsylvania's practice a man must familiarize himself with the physical characteristics of the road before he qualifies as engineman and to keep qualified he must make a trip over the territory once a year. The superintendent's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grundlehner v. Dangler, A--68
...municipal action but also in affording to the court a proper basis for judicial review. See Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Dept. of Public Utilities, 14 N.J. 411, 427, 102 A.2d 618 (1954). In view of the absence of any formal resolution by the board of adjustment setting forth the essential b......
-
Mazza v. Cavicchia, A--110
...the administrative determination will not be upset in the absence of a showing of prejudice. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Department of Public Utilities, 14 N.J. 411, 428, 102 A.2d 618 (1954). See in accord: Market Street Ry. Co. v. Railroad Comm. of Cal., 324 U.S. 548, 65 S.Ct. 770, 89 L.E......
-
Jersey City v. Department of Civil Service, A--15
....... The paying out of public funds to one purportedly rendering service to the ... See also Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Dep't of Public Utilities, 14 N.J. ...Board of Public Utility Comm'rs, 55 N.J.Super. 377, 151 A.2d 9 ......
-
Susquehanna Transit Commuters Ass'n v. Board of Public Utility Com'rs, A--202
...subject proceedings with opportunity for refutation by the parties adversely affected thereby. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Dept. of Public Utilities, 14 N.J. 411, 427, 102 A.2d 618, 626 (1954); Elizabeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Howell, supra. In the case of such administrative agen......