Railroad Commission of Texas v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co.

• Court: Texas Civil Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: SHANNON
• Citation: Railroad Commission of Texas v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 609 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. Ct. App. 1980)
• Decision Date: 03 December 1980
• Docket Number: No. 13203,13203
• Parties: RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Appellant, v. The ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD COMPANY et al., Appellees.

Page 641

609 S.W.2d 641

RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Appellant, v. The ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 13203.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Austin.

Dec. 3, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 31, 1980.

Walter Caven, Jerry Prestridge, Clark, Thomas, Winters & Shapiro, Austin, for appellant.

John S. McEldowney, Mills, Shirley, McMicken & Eckel, Galveston, for appellees.

SHANNON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a permanent injunction entered by the district court of Travis County restraining the Railroad Commission of Texas from enforcing its order in Docket No. 003353ZZCP.

In October, 1978, the superintendent and several patrons of the Academy Public Schools complained to the Commission of poor visibility at a grade crossing of the Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe Railway Company, located at Knob Creek Road and Heidenheimer in Bell County. The complaint was that high weeds and grass along the railroad right-of-way obscured visibility at the crossing, and that this condition, coupled with the lack of traffic signals, created a hazardous crossing.

In response, the Commission conducted a hearing concerning the safety of the grade crossing. The Commission adopted its examiner's recommendation and entered its order in Docket No. 003353ZZCP requiring the railway company to "... maintain its right-of-way within one-half mile of the above-described crossing in such manner that all weeds and grasses are never higher than one foot from the ground. It is further ordered that (the railway company) designate a responsible individual to file with the director of the Transportation Division, on the first day of the month, an affidavit stating that the right-of-way has been personally inspected and found to comply with the terms of this order."

Appellee Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company and others filed suit in the district court of Travis County seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the Commission from enforcing its order in Docket No. 003353ZZCP. After hearing, the district court determined that the Commission's jurisdiction is limited only to those matters which the Legislature has specifically delegated to the Commission, and that its powers under present legislation are not plenary and do not include safety matters in connection with the public's use of railroad crossings. The district court concluded, therefore, that the Commission was without power to issue the order, and, accordingly, entered the permanent injunction. This Court will affirm the order of the district court.

The Commission attacks the court's order by three points of error, claiming that the court erred in concluding that the Commission had no power or authority to enter its order in Docket No. 003353ZZCP.

It is of interest that the Commission's discovery of its power to regulate safety matters in connection with the public's use of railroad crossings originated with this case. When the Commission initially received the complaints concerning the grade crossing in question, the Commission referred the complainants to the Texas State Department of Highways & Public Transportation. In its letter of referral, the Commission stated, "The Railroad Commission has been operating under the belief that we do not have jurisdiction to regulate railroad grade crossings. However, our recent assessment of the situation is that there may be room for the Commission to act in this area. We are doing further research and considering possible courses of action to develop our role in grade crossing safety." After the Highway Commission declined to improve the grade crossing because sufficient funds would not be available in the foreseeable future, the Commission assumed jurisdiction by setting a hearing in November, 1978, to investigate the complaints and by directing its hearing examiner to prepare a report after hearing "recommending appropriate action by the Commission."

In defense of the order of the district court, appellees state, correctly, that an administrative agency, such as the Commission, is a creature of the Legislature and has only such powers as are expressly granted to it by statute, together with those necessarily implied from the authority conferred or duties imposed. State v. Jackson, 376 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.1964); Stauffer v. City of San Antonio, 162 Tex. 13, 344 S.W.2d 158 (1961); Railroad Commission of Texas v. Red Arrow Freight Lines, Inc., 96 S.W.2d 735 (Tex.Civ.App.1936, writ ref'd); So. Pac. Transp. Co. R. R. Commission of Tex., 592 S.W.2d 74 (Tex.Civ.App.1979, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Nueces Co. Water C. & I. Dist. v. Texas Water Rights Commission, 481 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.Civ.App.1972, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Appellees then argue that no statute expressly grants the Commission the powers asserted here, nor are those powers necessarily implied from authority conferred or duties imposed.

In support of its authority to enter its order, the Commission lists a number of statutes: Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 6448, 6460, 6320, 6327, and 6506 (1925).

Article 6448 consists of eleven sections that set out the duties of the Commission. The first nine sections are concerned with the Commission's powers and duties to regulate rates and charges with respect to freight and passengers. Section 10 requires railways to provide and maintain depots. Section 11 provides generally that the Commission is charged with the responsibility of insuring that all laws concerning railroads are enforced and that the Commission shall investigate all complaints against all railway companies. Article 6460 permits any person or entity complaining of a statutory violation by a railway company to "... apply to the Commission under such rules as the Commission may prescribe."

Article 6448 sets out in specific language the duties of the Commission. Regulation of safety measures on a railroad right-of-way is not one of the duties included therein. Had the Legislature intended to vest the Commission with the duty of regulating safety measures on railroad right-of-ways, it could have easily so provided in the clear and direct language used in Sections 1-10 of art. 6448. Contrary to the position of the Commission, Section 11 should be considered together with other provisions of art. 6448, and should not be viewed as vesting the Commission with jurisdiction over subjects not specified in other sections of the Act.

The Commission claims that art. 6320...