Opinion
No. 73-54
Decided July 3, 1973.
Public Utilities Commission — Jurisdiction — Railroads — Right of way — Obligations to destroy weeds and provide waterway — R.C. 4959.01 and 4959.11 — Commission without specific right to enforce — Order of commission unreasonable and unlawful, when.
1. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio is a creature of the General Assembly and may exercise no jurisdiction beyond that conferred by statute. ( Toledo v. Pub. Util. Comm., 135 Ohio St. 57; Akron Barberton Belt Rd. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 165 Ohio St. 316; Baltimore Ohio Rd. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 16 Ohio St.2d 60; Ohio Bus Line v. Pub. Util. Comm., 29 Ohio St.2d 222, approved and followed.)
2. The obligations imposed by R.C. 4959.01 and 4959.11 fall directly upon railroads and do not grant a specific right of enforcement to the Public Utilities Commission.
3. Where the Public Utilities Commission orders the mandatory performance by a railroad of the obligations imposed by R.C. 4959.01 and 4959.11, it assumes a power of injunctive relief exceeding its statutory jurisdiction, and such order constitutes an unreasonable and unlawful exercise of the commission's discretion.
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission.
On June 9, 1970, L.F. Romine and D.M. Romine, the operators of two farms bordering on the north side of a Penn Central right of way, filed a complaint by letter with the Public Utilities Commission, alleging that a problem existed between the Penn Central Transportation Company, appellant herein, and the complainant operators. The complaint states that the fence between the adjoining farms and the right of way is in disrepair; that the drainage ditch along the north side of the right of way is nearly full of muck and brush; that the brush has grown so tall and large that it is shading a considerable area, causing loss of crops and pasture, and providing a sanctuary for groundhogs; and that obnoxious weeds are permitted to grow on the railroad's property.
The Public Utilities Commission ordered that the matter be processed as a formal complaint. A public hearing was had before an attorney-examiner for the commission in November 1970. The examiner's report concluded that the matter was properly before the commission pursuant to R.C. 4905.04, 4905.05, 4907.08 and 4959.01 and Section 1.22 of the Rules and Regulations of the Public Utilities Commission, and that the commission had jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues presented in the complaint. The examiner concluded that the evidence introduced by the complainants proved the existence of an excessive amount of weeds, brush and vegetation along the railroad right of way, resulting in a blockage of the proper and natural drainage from the complainants' property. The examiner also determined that the commission had authority to order the appellant to cooperate with the complainants in alleviating the drainage conditions complained of, and so recommended.
Appellant filed exceptions to the attorney-examiner's report, including an objection to the commission's jurisdiction.
On September 28, 1972, the commission issued its opinion and order, overruling appellant's objections and ordering appellant to destroy and remove the weeds and brush on its property in the area of the complaint. The parties were accorded a period of 60 days within which, in cooperation with each other, to work out differences between them.
In response to the appellant's application for rehearing, the commission, on November 24, 1972, issued a second entry, reaffirming its jurisdiction of the matter and reiterating its order to Penn Central, but without affirming the 60-day accord granted the parties.
From that order, the appellant appeals to this court.
Mr. Grey K. Nelson, Mr. Thomas R. Skulina and Mr. Alex L. Fricke, for appellant.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Walter E. Carson, for appellee.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction to order a railroad to destroy and remove weeds and brush from its right of way upon the complaint of the operator of an adjoining farm that such conditions have an adverse effect upon the operation of his farm.
It is well settled in Ohio that the Public Utilities Commission is a creature of the General Assembly and may exercise no jurisdiction beyond that conferred by statute. Toledo v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1939), 135 Ohio St. 57; Akron Barberton Belt Rd. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1956), 165 Ohio St. 316; Baltimore Ohio Rd. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 60; Ohio Bus Line v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 222.
The General Assembly has defined the scope of the commission's jurisdiction in R.C. 4905.05 to "* * * extend to every public utility and railroad, the plant or property of which lies wholly within this state * * * [or] to that part * * * which lies within this state * * *." (Emphasis added.)
The specific powers of the commission in regard to the regulation of railroads are enumerated in R.C. Chapter 4907. Applicable to the present case is R.C. 4907.08, which requires that the commission shall inquire into any neglect or violation of the laws of this state by a railroad and enforce certain chapters of the Revised Code wherein specific authority to regulate has been granted to the commission. The commission is also authorized by this section to enforce all other laws relating to railroads and required to report violations thereof to the Attorney General.
R.C. 4907.08 also requires the commission, upon complaint or otherwise, to examine into any matter where it has reason to believe that a railroad has violated or is violating any law of this state, or where it has reason to believe that differences have arisen between citizens of this state and any railroad operating as a common carrier within the state.
Appellee alleges in its brief that the appellant has specifically violated R.C. 4959.01 and 4959.11, which impose upon railroads the statutory obligations, respectively, to maintain open drainage outlets and to destroy all noxious weeds growing within the railroad's right of way. Appellee contends that inherent in the jurisdiction of the commission to examine or inquire into the violation of any state law or into any differences between a citizen of this state and a railroad is the power to order appropriate relief.
Without attempting to define the limits of the broad jurisdiction granted the commission in R.C. 4905.05 and 4907.08, this court must hold the order of the Public Utilities Commission to be unlawful and unreasonable.
The obligations imposed by R.C. 4959.01 and 4959.11 fall directly upon the railroad and do not grant a specific right of enforcement to the commission. In the case of the latter section, the trustees of the township in which the right of way is located are granted a right of action for the costs incurred in performing the railroad's obligation upon default.
Upon the facts in the present case, to allow the commission to order the mandatory performance of appellant's statutory obligations, in maintaining its right of way, amounts to a grant to the commission of a power of injunctive relief. The determination of competing equities inherent in such power is more properly reserved to the courts for disposition, and the commission is in no sense a court. New Bremen v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1921), 103 Ohio St. 23, 30.
The General Assembly has granted the power of injunctive relief solely to the courts of Ohio. It has conferred no such right upon the Public Utilities Commission, and the commission, in exercising such power, has exceeded its statutory jurisdiction.
The order of the Public Utilities Commission is, therefore, reversed.
Order reversed.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.