Opinion
No. 23851
Decided March 22, 1933.
Public Utilities Commission — Motor transportation companies — Revocation of certificate of convenience and necessity — Noncompliance with requirement exacted as condition precedent to issuance — Liability insurance — Laws and safety rules and regulations rigidly enforced — Intrastate certificate revocable regardless of effect upon interstate business of certificate holder.
1. Failure to comply with any requirement exacted as a condition precedent to the issuance of a certificate of convenience and necessity, to a motor transportation company, is ample ground for the revocation of the certificate by the Public Utilities Commission.
2. The provisions of law and the rules and regulations of the commission authorized by statute, which are designed for the safety of the traveling public, should be rigidly enforced.
3. The Public Utilities Commission has authority, for good cause, to revoke a certificate of public convenience and necessity, theretofore issued by it for intrastate operation, regardless of its effect upon the interstate business of the holder of such certificate.
ERROR to the Public Utilities Commission.
The Public. Utilities Commission of Ohio upon citation and after full hearing revoked certificate of public convenience and necessity No. 1325 theretofore issued to the Midwestern Motor Transit, Inc., and ordered immediate and complete discontinuance of any service under such certificate. In its order dated September 20, 1932, it found that the Midwestern Motor Transit, Inc., had been authorized by the terms of the certificate in question to furnish intrastate passenger service between Canton, Ohio, and East Liverpool, Ohio, via Minerva and Lisbon, using two 21-passenger busses therefor. That company was also the holder and operator of certificate No. 2834, authorizing the use of four 25-passenger busses, in interstate commerce, only, over a route extending in Ohio between the Ohio-Michigan state line and the Ohio-Pennsylvania state line by way of Toledo, Fremont, Bucyrus, Mansfield, Wooster, Canton and East Liverpool; it was also the holder and operator of certificate No. 3136, authorizing the use of three 25-passenger busses in interstate commerce, only, over a route in Ohio between Toledo, Ohio, and the Ohio-Indiana state line; also the holder and operator of certificate No. 3404, authorizing the use of three 25-passenger busses in interstate commerce only, over a route extending in Ohio between Cleveland and the Ohio-Pennsylvania state line, via Akron, Canton and East Liverpool.
The Commission found from the evidence adduced before it that said company had repeatedly carried passengers contrary to specific orders of the commission, without having on file insurance policies or bonds, had failed without reasonable excuse to operate in accordance with the time schedules filed with the commission, had operated equipment dedicated to service between Canton and East Liverpool upon and over other routes without authority, and had interchanged without authority equipment listed under certificate No. 1325 and equipment listed under its several interstate certificates; that it had been involved in accidents without reporting such fact, had failed to accommodate persons who had presented themselves for transportation, had operated its equipment at unsafe, unreasonable and excessive speed and in a reckless manner, had violated special and temporary orders of the commission issued to assist the said company, and had generally disregarded and disrespected the orders, rules and regulations of the commission and the laws of the state regulating motor transportation companies. It further found that the respondent had on a number of occasions violated the terms of other certificates held by it permitting the carriage of passengers in interstate commerce only. Its conclusion was that: "Considering the past experiences with and practices of the Midwestern Motor Transit, Inc., the inadequacy of its service provided under intrastate certificate of public convenience and necessity No. 1325, its disregard for the public and the commission, the commission is of the opinion that this company has long since, with respect to its intrastate operations, forfeited its right to any further consideration."
The application for rehearing having been overruled a petition in error was filed in this court seeking a reversal of the order of the Public Utilities Commission.
Mr. Aaron J. Halloran, Mr. Robert J. Hayes and Messrs. Herbert S. Thomas J. Duffy, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. John W. Bricker, attorney general, and Mr. Thomas J. Herbert, for defendant in error.
The only question presented is whether the finding and order of the commission revoking the intrastate certificate of the plaintiff in error is unreasonable or unlawful. It is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence; on the contrary, the several findings of the commission are abundantly supported by the evidence.
Counsel for the plaintiff in error contend that the action of the commission is in violation of Section 614-87, General Code. This section provides in substance that no certificate shall be revoked for failure to give service until the issuance of an order requiring Such service and stipulating a reasonable time to comply therewith of not less than sixty days. One of the grounds upon which the order of revocation is based was the failure of the company to meet the requirements of Section 614-99, General Code, relative to liability insurance. The record shows that the commission had frequently ordered the company to cease operating until proper insurance was filed and had ordered it to cease transporting intrastate passengers under certificate No. 3404, or any other certificate. The Public Utilities Commission is not authorized to issue a certificate of convenience and necessity to a motor transportation company until such company shall have filed a liability insurance policy or bond deemed necessary to adequately protect the interests of the public. It is further provided that in the event such policy should lapse it must be replaced, and in default thereof the certificate "shall be deemed revoked." It is thus made the mandatory duty of a motor transportation company to carry such liability insurance, and keep its policy in force, or give bond as required by statute.
Specific provision was made by the Motor Transportation Act (Section 614-84, et seq., General Code) covering insurance and other requirements for the purpose of protecting and safeguarding the rights and interests of the traveling public. The failure and default upon the part of the company in this instance not only justified but required the action taken by the commission, now complained of. Certainly a failure to comply with a requirement which is exacted as a condition precedent to the issuance of any certificate of convenience is ample cause for the revocation of a certificate. Not only the provisions of law, but the rules and regulations of the commission authorized by statute, which are designed for the safety of the traveling public, should be rigidly enforced by the commission.
This case does not present a condition of mere inadequacy of service, but one of chronic violation of law and the orders of the commission. Matters of this character have heretofore been dealt with by this court in no uncertain terms. Scheibel, Mayor, v. Hogan, 113 Ohio St. 83, 148 N.E. 581; Solt v. Public Utilities Commission, 114 Ohio St. 283, 150 N.E. 28; Scioto Valley Ry. Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 117 Ohio St. 64, 157 N.E. 475; Minerva-Canton Transit Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 118 Ohio St. 561, 162 N.E. 34.
The contention that the order of the commission is unauthorized and invalid, on the ground that "no state has any jurisdiction over the interstate operation other than police powers and cannot interfere with intrastate business which is incidental and sustaining to interstate commerce," has no merit. It has been well settled that even a certificate for interstate service may be revoked for flagrant violation of valid rules and regulations. Wheeling Traction Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 119 Ohio St. 481, 164 N.E. 523; Detroit-Cincinnati Coach Lines v. Public Utilities Commission, 119 Ohio St. 324, 164 N.E. 356; Clark v. Poor, 274 U.S. 554, 47 S.Ct., 702, 71 L.Ed., 1199; Sprout v. City of South Bend, 277 U.S. 163, 48 S.Ct., 502, 72 L.Ed., 833, 62 A. L. R., 45. In Clark v. Poor, supra, it is said in the opinion by Judge Brandeis, at page 557, that "The highways are public property. Users of them, although engaged exclusively in interstate commerce, are subject to regulation by the State to ensure safety and convenience and the conservation of the highways." It is likewise held in Sprout v. City of South Bend, supra, at page 169, that "In the absence of federal legislation covering the subject, the state may impose, even upon vehicles using the highways exclusively in interstate commerce, nondiscriminatory regulations for the purpose of insuring the public safety and convenience."
It follows that the Public Utilities Commission has authority, for good cause, to revoke a certificate of public convenience and necessity theretofore issued by it for intrastate operation regardless of its effect upon the interstate business of the holder of such certificate.
Order affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., DAY ALLEN, STEPHENSON and JONES, JJ., concur.
KINKADE, J., not participating.