Transport Co. v. P.U.C.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | 23434 |
| Citation | 181 N.E. 665,125 Ohio St. 374 |
| Parties | Motor Transport & Truck Co. v. Public Utilities Commission Of Ohio. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Public Utilities Commission - Motor transportation companies - Use of streets and highways, by common carriers, subject to regulation - Interstate operation cannot be excluded, but may be regulated - Reasonableness of regulations judged by public safety and convenience, and carriers' necessities - Routing operations over less congested highways, not impairment of constitutional rights.
1. Streets and highways belong to the public, and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way. Their use for the purpose of gain by common carriers is special and extraordinary and subject to regulation by duly constituted authority.
2. The Public Utilities Commission is not authorized to exclude from the highways of the state motor transportation companies conducting interstate operations, but it may impose reasonable regulations of such traffic authorized by the laws of the state in so far as they do not constitute a direct and material burden upon interstate commerce. (Cannon Ball Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 113 Ohio St. 565, approved and followed.)
3. The reasonableness of such regulations, as applied to motor vehicles, must be judged with a proper regard to the safety and convenience of the public, in view of local conditions on the one hand, and the necessities of those engaged in interstate transportation, upon the other.
4. Where, upon the consideration of an application of a motor transportation company to operate on a designated route carrying property in interstate commerce, it is shown that a portion of such route is so badly congested by established motor vehicle operations that the addition of the applicant's proposed service would create and maintain an excessive and undue hazard to the safety and security of the traveling public and the property upon such highway, and the commission so finds, a condition so imposed upon the applicant and subsequently applying motor companies operating in intrastate and interstate traffic that such operations be routed over a less congested highway, is not an infringement upon or impairment of any right secured by either state or federal constitution.
Five applications were filed with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio by the Motor Transport & Truck Company for certificates to do an interstate trucking business over various highways in the state of Ohio. Four of these permits were granted, but application No. 5083 was denied. That application was for a certificate to establish, maintain and operate a motor transportation service in interstate commerce between Cleveland, Ohio, and Dundee, Michigan, upon and over a regular route extending from Cleveland, Ohio, to the Ohio-Michigan line over state route No. 2 within the state of Ohio.
The commission upon hearing found that state route No. 2, between Sandusky, Ohio, and Cleveland, Ohio, "is so badly congested by established motor vehicle operations, that the addition of the applicant's proposed service would create and maintain an excessive and undue hazard to the safety and security of the traveling public and to the property upon such highway," and ordered "that in the interest of preserving the public welfare, the application be, and hereby it is, denied."
Thereupon a petition in error was filed in this court to procure a reversal of the finding and order of the Public Utilities Commission.
Mr Otto L. Hankison, for plaintiff in error.
Mr Gilbert Bettman, attorney general, Mr. Thomas J. Herbert and Mr. Andrew D. Rodgers, Jr., for defendant in error.
It is contended by counsel for plaintiff in error, (1) That the Public Utilities Commission is without authority to deny its application to operate a motortruck service in interstate commerce on the route applied for upon the ground that the highway over which it seeks to operate is so badly congested that the maintenance of the proposed motortruck serv- ice by the applicant would create an excessive and undue hazard to the safety and security of the traveling public and to the property upon such highway; and (2) that if the Public Utilities Commission does have such power the record in this case does not disclose sufficient facts to warrant its finding and order and that therefore the same is unlawful and unreasonable.
The action of the Public Utilities Commission in this case was based upon the provisions of Sections 614-86 to 614-102 General Code, which confer upon such commission authority to supervise and regulate motor transportation companies and facilities, including the operations of interstate companies within the state, "in so far as the same may be permitted under the provisions of the constitution of the United States and the acts of congress." Section 614-101, General Code.
It is well settled that in the absence of national legislation especially covering the subject of interstate commerce the state may prescribe uniform regulations adapted to promote safety upon its highways and conservation of its highways; the same being applicable alike to interstate and local commerce. Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385; Buck v. Kuykendall, Director of Public Works, 267 U.S. 307, 45 S.Ct. 324, 69 L.Ed. 623, 38 A.L.R. 286.
It has been conceded by counsel for plaintiff in error that the Public Utilities Commission may, in the proper exercise of the police powers and for the promotion of the public safety and conservation of the highways, prescribe reasonable regulations for the use of the highways of the state, but it is contended that the action of the commission results in a discrimination against interstate commerce in that those engaged in the same business are subject to different restrictions, or are entitled to different privileges under the same conditions, and thereby the equal right which all can claim in the enforcement of the law is impaired.The Supreme Court of the United States has in numerous decisions recognized the principle that the states have a broad discretion in the exercise of their power of regulation. The case of Hendrick v. Mary-land, supra, involved the question of the authority of a state to regulate vehicle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio 20 8212 23, 1933
...the Supreme Court of the state; were there denied (125 Ohio St. 381, 181 N.E. 668) upon the authority of Motor Transport Co. v. Public Utilities Company, 125 Ohio St. 374, 181 N.E. 665; and are renewed here upon this appeal. We are of opinion that the claims are First. It is contended that ......
-
Council Bluffs Transit Co. v. City of Omaha
...may be all that the public safety and convenience will permit. A like conclusion was reached in Motor Transport & Truck Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 125 Ohio St. 374, 181 N.E. 665, where the court pointed out that the record did not disclose that the order would result in either a su......
-
Stickel v. Erie Motor Freight, Inc.
... ... freight and merchandise; and in order that Shappell, who had ... no individual permit or certificate, might transport its ... freight and merchandise in and through Ohio, appellee ... directed and permitted him to use its certificate number for ... the furtherance ... ...