Salt Lake-Kanab Freight Lines v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 13 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 8941,LAKE-KANAB,8941 |
| Citation | 9 Utah 2d 99,339 P.2d 99 |
| Parties | d 99 SALTFREIGHT LINES, Inc., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. A. B. ROBINSON, d/b/a A. B. Robinson Truck Line, and Public Service Commission of Utah, Defendants. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Skeen, Worsley, Snow & Christensen, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
E. R. Callister, Jr., Atty. Gen., Olsen & Chamberlain, Richfield, for defendants.
Plaintiff, Salt Lake-Kanab Freight Lines, seeks a review of the Public Service Commission's order dated June 20, 1958, granting defendant Robinson contract carrier permit No. 475, which reissues previous contract carrier authority with additional authority.
Plaintiff contends that the finding of a need for the additional authority granted was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the evidence, and that such permit will deprive plaintiff of its business. There is little dispute in the factual evidence. The question is whether the Commission used sound judgment in granting the permit under the facts disclosed, or did it act arbitrarily and capriciously.
The dispute deals exclusively with the propriety of granting the additional contract carrier authority. The order granted Robinson new and additional authority to haul for Bill Winkel Distributing Company beer, candy, groceries and general commodities from Salt Lake City to Richfield, Utah, and to haul oxygen, acetylene cylinders and general automobile parts for the Richfield Auto Parts Company from Salt Lake City to all points between Salt Lake City and Richfield, including the off-route town of Gunnison. The testimony disclosed that both these contractees consider plaintiff's freight rates to be so high that the use of its service except in emergencies or exceptional cases is prohibitive. In the past these contractees have given plaintiff only such exceptional or emergency business and they expressed the intention of continuing to give plaintiff such business, but the bulk of their business they indicated had in the past been hauled in their own trucks and in the future would be hauled by Robinson.
We will not disturb the findings of the Commission if supported by substantial evidence and are reasonable in view of the evidence. 1 Here there is no substantial dispute as to the facts; it is a question of the Commission's exercising sound judgment as to what will be in the interest or benefit of the public. In such cases we do not reverse the Commission unless its decision is arbitrary and capricious. 2
Plaintiff contends that the only public benefit shown is a reduced freight rate to these shippers, and since their rates are under public supervision and a common carrier is entitled to a reasonable compensation for an adequate service, this does not justify the granting of this additional contract carrier authority. There is some merit to this argument. The law, since it sometimes grants monopolistic rights to a common carrier furnishing satisfactory services to the public, 5 does not contemplate the granting of contract carrier authority which will deprive the common carrier of the cream of its business merely because of a reduced rate. Such policy would jeopardize the stability and efficiency of the common carrier service contrary to the public interests. However, all other things being equal, a reduction of freight rates is a public benefit and is especially a benefit to the person to whom the reduction is made available. Here the evidence indicates that the granting of this contract carrier authority will not deprive the common carrier of any business, but the contract carrier will only haul freight which the contractees have in the past hauled in their own trucks and which they claim they will haul in the future if the contract carrier authority is not granted because they claim they can haul this freight in their own trucks for less than the plaintiff common carrier rates. It is clear that this contract carrier authorization exposes plaintiff to an additional competition to retain the business which it now gets from these shippers, with a probability that some of plaintiff's present business may be lost to the contract carrier. On the other hand, there is a possibility that the plaintiff may be able to pick up more of these shippers' business. This is a matter for the sound judgment of the Commission to decide what is for the public interest and benefit. We do not find the Commission's decision to be arbitrary or capricious and affirm its action.
Costs to defendants.
WORTHEN, J., heard argument but died before the opinion was filed.
1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Class I Rail Carriers of Kan. v. State Corp. Commission
...or denial of the contract carrier permit has no practical nor legal effect upon the common carrier. Compare Salt Lake-Kanab Freight Lines v. Robinson, 9 Utah 2d 99, 339 P.2d 99, where it is '* * * Here the evidence indicates that the granting of this contract carrier authority will not depr......
-
Salt Lake Transfer Co. v. Public Service Comn. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
...on a blind adherence to his own error in Lake Shore. I think we should admit and correct our errors. 1 Salt Lake-Kanab Freight Lines, Inc. v. Robinson, 9 Utah 2d 99, 339 P.2d 99.2 Ashworth Transfer Co. v. Public Service ice Comm., 2 Utah 2d 23, 268 P.2d 990.3 Lake Shore Motor Coach Lines, I......
-
Wycoff Warehouse Inc. v. Public Service Comn.
...New International Dictionary, 2d Ed. Unabridged; 56 Am.Jur. Warehouses, Sec. 3, page 320.2 Salt Lake-Kanab Freight Lines, Inc. v. A. B. Robinson Truck Line, 9 Utah 2d 99, 339 P.2d 99; Uintah Freightways v. Public Service Commission, 15 Utah 2d 221, 390 P.2d ...