Opinion
No. 37284
Decided March 28, 1962.
Railroads — Grade crossing in open country — Flasher lights and half gates — Installation ordered by Public Utilities Commission — Order not unreasonable or unlawful — Court will not substitute its judgment for that of commission.
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission.
This proceeding was initiated by the filing with the Public Utilities Commission of a request that the Toledo Terminal Railroad Company, appellant herein, install automatic flasher light signals at the grade crossing at Wales Road between Tracy and Woodsville in Ross Township, Wood County. Wales Road extends in an easterly and westerly direction and, at the subject crossing, is intersected at right angles by two main tracks and a dormant side track of the appellant. This crossing is in open level country, and the four quadrants of the intersection consist solely of level farm land. The tracks are 18 inches above the level of the road, the rise thereto flaring over a distance of about 12 feet.
A traffic check discloses that in a 16-hour period 58 freight trains and 1,310 vehicles pass over the crossing. The trains move at a maximum speed of 20 miles an hour. A ten-year accident record discloses two accidents at the crossing. A school bus carrying 47 or 48 pupils uses the crossing four times daily.
The attorney examiner found that the highway approaches to the crossing offer no unusual hazards. The commission's inspector testified that additional warning devices would not increase the safety factor.
The commission ordered that the subject crossing be declared dangerous, and that the appellant install train-activated flasher lights and half gates to block traffic in the approach lanes.
An appeal from the order of the Public Utilities Commission brings the cause to this court for review.
Messrs. Shumaker, Loop Kendrick, Mr. Robert B. Gosline and Mr. John W. Hackett, Jr., for appellant.
Mr. Mark McElroy, attorney general, Mr. DeForest Mellon, Mr. Herbert T. Maher and Mr. Andrew R. Sarisky, for appellee.
The appellant contends that the order of the commission is unreasonable, unlawful, an abuse of discretion and contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
The record contains conflicting testimony and evidence supporting the contentions of both parties. Ordinarily this court will not substitute its judgment on questions of fact for that of the commission. It does not appear from an examination of the record that the order of the commission is against the manifest weight of the evidence or is otherwise unlawful or unreasonable. The order is, therefore, affirmed.
Order affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL, KERNS and O'NEILL, JJ., concur.
KERNS, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of HERBERT, J.