Summary
In Ohio Transport v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1955), 164 Ohio St. 98, 128 N.E.2d 22, the court affirmed an order of the commission revoking a contract carrier permit because of numerous violations of load limit laws.
Summary of this case from Commercial Motor Freight v. Pub. Util. CommOpinion
Nos. 34308 and 34309
Decided July 20, 1955.
Public Utilities Commission — Motor transportation companies — Certificate of public convenience and necessity — Authority to revoke, alter or amend — Section 4921.10, Revised Code — Grounds for revocation — Violation of weight and load limit statutes — Determination of degree of administrative action, duty of commission — Determination not disturbed by court, when — Evidence warranting revocation — Hearings — Disqualification of member of commission — Determination of — Testimony of witnesses — Immunity personal to witness — Revocation not "penalty or forfeiture" — Section 4903.08, Revised Code.
1. The Public Utilities Commission may for good cause and upon notice and hearing as provided by Section 4921.10, Revised Code, revoke, alter or amend any certificate or permit issued by it to a motor transportation company.
2. Such action by the commission "for good cause" may be based on a violation of the weight and load limit statutes of Ohio, irrespective of the fact that such statutes are not a part of the Motor Transportation Act and irrespective of the fact that there has been no prosecution thereunder. ( Dworkin, Inc., v. Public Utilities Commission, 159 Ohio St. 174, approved and followed.)
3. The determination of the character and degree of the administrative action to be invoked against a carrier is the duty of the Public Utilities Commission, and such determination by the commission will not be disturbed by this court unless it is unreasonable or unlawful.
4. Where it appears from the findings of fact made by the Public Utilities Commission that a contract carrier by motor vehicle hauled more than 900 shipments of steel each in excess of the maximum gross weight prescribed by law; that 210 of such overloads were hauled during one month; that many of such overloads were in excess of 84,000 pounds; that all but 8 of the 35 drivers of such carrier who were interviewed acknowledged that they had knowingly hauled overloads; and that the carrier itself had knowledge of these excessive weights and billed its consignees on the basis thereof; an order revoking said carrier's contract permit and irregular certificate is amply warranted by the evidence and is not unreasonable or unlawful.
5. The revocation of a contract carrier's permit is not a "penalty or forfeiture" within the purview of Section 4903.08, Revised Code.
6. The immunity offered by Section 4903.08, Revised Code, is personal to the witness testifying and does not extend to a corporation of which he may be an officer.
7. In the absence of legislative direction as to the circumstances under which a member of the Public Utilities Commission should disqualify himself and in the absence of statutory provisions for the determination of the fact of disqualification and the substitution of another to replace a member disqualified, the members of the Public Utilities Commission have no jurisdiction to determine the disqualification of each other by reason of alleged bias or prejudice.
APPEALS from the Public Utilities Commission.
Ohio Transport, Inc., hereinafter designated appellant, is an Ohio corporation having its office and principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio, and was at all times involved herein a contract carrier by motor vehicle in intrastate commerce in Ohio, operating under and by virtue of a contract carrier permit No. 3066 (case No. 34308) originally issued to it by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio on or about March 1, 1950, and an irregular intrastate certificate No. 3975 (case No. 34309).
Since the facts in each of the cases are substantially the same, and the issues involved are identical, only the facts and issues involved in case No. 34308 will be set out and discussed in this opinion, with the understanding that what is said with reference to that case is equally applicable to case No. 34309.
On September 11, 1953, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio issued a citation against appellant wherein it is alleged that appellant "did wrongfully, illegally and unlawfully operate under authority of said permit in the following particulars during portions of the period from January 1, 1952, to August 1, 1953, to wit:
"Permitted its drivers to operate loaded motor vehicles upon the public streets and highways of the state of Ohio, the total weights of which vehicles and loads imposed upon the road surfaces were in excess of the maximum weight therefor prescribed and limited by Sections 7246 and 7248-1, General Code (Sections 5577.02 and 5577.04, Revised Code), and in violation of the rules and regulations of this commission, as evidenced by said carrier's own office records, invoices, shipping orders and/or receipts relating to the transport of the property so overloaded and which are specifically set forth and listed in exhibit `A' attached hereto and made a part hereof as if expressly written herein."
On November 20, 1953, appellant filed a motion with the commission asking that the citation be dismissed for the reason that the commission does not have jurisdiction to revoke or suspend appellant's permit for the reasons set forth in the citation. This motion was overruled. An application for a rehearing filed on behalf of appellant was denied, and thereafter appellant filed its answer to said citation which consists of a general denial of the charges.
On February 17, 1954, prior to the hearing before the commission on the citation, appellant filed a motion to disqualify the chairman from sitting in, presiding over, or in any manner considering evidence, making any decision or participating in the proceeding, for the reason that the chairman was prejudiced and biased against appellant as evidenced by statements to the public press concerning the proceeding prior to the hearing and trial of the issues. On February 23, 1954, a formal hearing on this motion to disqualify was conducted by members of the commission, Martin and Winter, who, following argument thereon, overruled the motion to disqualify.
At the beginning of the hearing before the attorney examiner, appellant proceeded with the approval of the examiner to proffer evidence in support of its motion to disqualify, which evidence is summarized in appellant's brief, as follows:
"Early in the summer of 1953, three disgruntled persons who had formerly driven equipment under contract to citee approached the Cleveland Press and made assertions and charges concerning citee and its operations. Among the charges made by these former drivers were those of bribery, violations of union contracts, overloading, and many other allegations of violation of law.
"On August 15, 1953, the commission ordered one of its attorney examiners to attend a meeting called by said newspaper at its offices to be attended by the three drivers, a representative of the highway patrol, and a representative of the newspaper. At this meeting, the charges which had been previously made by the drivers were discussed and the drivers examined by the attorney examiner, the representative of the highway patrol, and the representative of the Cleveland paper.
"An examination of the minutes of this meeting (citee's exhibit 5, Tr. Vol. 1) discloses that the charges previously made were without foundation; yet, despite this fact, Commissioner Moulton, on August 19, 1953, said, `But the important point is that if the company is in violation we want to get it off the roads.' (Citee's exhibit 4, Tr. Vol. 1).
"Again on September 11, 1953, Commissioner Moulton, indicating a presumption of guilt on the part of citee, stated to the press (citee's exhibits 1 and 3, Tr. Vol. 1), `For the past year and a half Ohio Transport has been moving about two and a half overloads a day in and out of Cleveland'; and on the same date he was quoted in a press release as follows: `The findings of the three-week probe are serious and of great import to the people of Ohio.'
"Again on December 30, 1953, in a press release issued by the Public Utilities Commission under the direction of the chairman and with his approval, we find the following (citee's exhibit 2, Tr. Vol. 1): `Then along came Ohio Transport, Inc., another Cleveland trucker. The commission got complaints on this one from a Cleveland newspaper, then whipped up a new investigative technique, sent in a fleet of accountants and inspectors to go over the company's books, and found evidence of at least 1,058 alleged overloads in 19 months primarily on steel hauls between Cleveland and McDonald.'"
On June 30, 1954, the report of the attorney examiner was filed wherein he made the following findings of fact:
"(1) Citee, Ohio Transport, holds contract motor carrier permit No. 3066, from this commission.
"(2) Under that authority Ohio Transport principally transports steel for The American Steel Wire Co. out of its plant in McDonald, Ohio, to points and places in the Cleveland area.
"(3) In this operation the citee makes very extensive use of owner-operators, who are paid a percentage of the revenue derived from the transportation.
"(4) The procedure followed by the citee in operating under its contract motor carrier permit is as follows:
"(a) An agent of Ohio Transport is located at the plant of the shipper. As loads become ready for transportation this agent summons the equipment from the terminal of Ohio Transport to come and load at the plant of the shipper.
"(b) The shipper prepares a `shipping order' which contains various information such as: the number of the vehicles to be used, the name of the driver, the weight of the load to be transported, and other similar information.
"(c) A copy of this `shipping order' is then given to the driver or owner-operator of the Ohio Transport, Inc., who retains said copy in his possession during transit.
"(d) When the load arrives at the point of destination the Ohio Transport driver has his `shipping order' receipted by an agent of the consignee.
"(e) A driver or owner-operator of Ohio Transport then returns the `shipping order' to the offices of Ohio Transport.
"(f) The Ohio Transport, Inc., then uses the `shipping order' or the information contained thereon in computing its charges to its shippers and also in computing the payments which it makes to its owner-operators or drivers.
"(5) From an examination of these `shipping orders' for the period of Jan. 1, 1952, to August 4, 1953, by investigators of this commission and as set forth in PUCO exhibit No. 5, which are the work sheets made by such investigator, it appears that during the period for which the investigation was conducted the records of Ohio Transport indicate that over 900 (nine hundred and twenty-six more or less) shipments were transported in excess of 78,000 lbs. These loads were each in violation of existing Ohio weight laws. Likewise, each such violation was also an infraction of this commission's safety rules and regulations.
"(6) The citee's overall record as to safety and general operations is good."
The attorney examiner recommended that the operating rights of the appellant be suspended for a period of not to exceed 30 days. Thereafter the commission rejected the recommendations of the attorney examiner and revoked appellant's permit.
The cause is now before this court upon appeal from the order of the Public Utilities Commission.
Messrs. Calland, Stouffer Asher and Messrs. Jenkins, Williams, Wendt, Murray Deeg, for appellant.
Mr. C. William O'Neill, attorney general, Mr. Everett H. Krueger, Jr., Mr. Ralph N. Mahaffey and Mr. James M. Burtch, Jr., for appellee.
Although the appellant assigns 25 specifications of error, all of them are included in the following four questions presented by this appeal:
1. Did the commission have jurisdiction to revoke or suspend appellant's permit for the reasons specified in its citation order?
2. Was the penalty inflicted by the commission excessive or unreasonable?
3. Was the commission estopped from revoking or suspending the permit of appellant because of the provisions of Section 4903.08, Revised Code?
4. Did the commission err in not disqualifying the chairman from participating in this proceeding?
Section 614-105, General Code (Section 4923.03, Revised Code), reads in part as follows:
"The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio is hereby vested with power and authority to supervise and regulate each such private motor carrier in this state; to prescribe reasonable safety rules; to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations for the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this chapter applying to each such contract carrier by motor vehicle in this state * * *."
Appellant contends that the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission is limited by this section to only such matters as are covered by "this chapter" (the Motor Transportation Act), and that, since Sections 7246 and 7248-1, General Code (Sections 5577.01 and 5577.04, Revised Code), referred to in the citation, are not a part of "this chapter," the commission is without jurisdiction to act.
This question is not a new one in Ohio.
Section 614-87, General Code (Section 4921.10, Revised Code), reads in part as follows:
"The commission may at any time for good cause and upon at least 15 days' notice to the grantee of any certificate and [after granting] an opportunity to be heard, revoke, alter or amend any certificate issued under the provisions of this chapter."
The third and fourth paragraphs of the syllabus in Dworkin v. Public Utilities Commission, 159 Ohio St. 174, 111 N.E.2d 389, are:
"3. Such action by the commission for `good cause' may be based on a violation of a statute or a valid rule or order of the commission.
"4. Such action may be based on a criminal statutory violation although there may have been no prosecution thereunder."
Appellant contends that revocation of its permit was an excessive and unreasonable disciplinary action by the commission because of (1) the absence of arrest for overloading in its operations under the permit and (2) certain "mitigating circumstances" listed by the attorney examiner in his report and recommendation.
It is, of course, the duty of the commission and not of the examiner to fix the degree and character of the administrative action to be invoked against a carrier. In its discussion of the evidence in this cause, the commission stated as follows:
" There are no facts or circumstances in this case which can properly be regarded as being in the nature of mitigating elements. The citee, in the judgment of the commission, has been willful and wanton in its violation. In the month of December 1952 there was an average of seven (7) violations per day. The average gross overload was in excess of 3,000 lbs. Under these facts and circumstances, it is impossible for the commission to conclude that such operations were the result of mere carelessness or negligence. Such consistent regularity in violating the law over such a period of time, with full knowledge on the part of a number of citee's duly authorized agents and employees, indicates very clearly that such illegal activities were part of the day-to-day pattern of operations conducted by this company and either approved or condoned by the officers and directors.
"* * * Certainly, just because the citee was not apprehended, prosecuted or convicted for his illegal acts does not condone them nor does it serve as a mitigating circumstance that it was so fortunate as not to be caught in its illegal activities.
"The commission, while acknowledging that the accident record of citee appears to be good, at least by standards commonly accepted by insurance companies, does not believe that a company which so recklessly and regularly disregards the laws of Ohio on weight limits is carrying on a sound business operation or is a company of which it can be said that its overall operating record is good." (Emphasis added.)
Examination of the record upon which the commission based its order of revocation discloses that appellant hauled approximately 900 shipments of steel in excess of the maximum gross weight prescribed by law; that 210 of these overloads were hauled during December 1952 alone, for an average of 7 overloads per day or 52.5 overloads per week; that a large proportion of these overloads exceeded 84,000 pounds and two of them were in excess of 90,000 pounds; that all but eight of citee's 35 drivers, interviewed by the highway patrol, acknowledged that they had knowingly hauled overloads during the period covered by the commission's citation; that both citee and citee's drivers had knowledge of these overloads; and that citee billed the consignees on the basis of these excessive weights.
In the light of these facts, this court can not say that the action of revocation by the commission was excessive or unreasonable.
Appellant contends that the commission was estopped from revoking or suspending the permit of appellant because of the provisions of Section 614-39, General Code (Section 4903.08, Revised Code), which reads as follows:
"No person shall be excused from testifying or from producing accounts, books and papers, in any hearing before the commission, or any member thereof, or any person appointed by it to investigate any matter or thing under its jurisdiction, on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence might tend to incriminate him, or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, but no such person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for, or on account of, any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he may have testified or produced any documentary evidence; provided that no person so testifying shall be exempted from prosecution or punishment for perjury in so testifying."
Appellant contends that inasmuch as the commission subpoenaed it, through its president, to appear, testify and bring various books, records, bills, orders, invoices, accounts and other papers relating to shipments, weights, etc., and that, since the president did testify in regard to those matters, the commission is estopped from taking any disciplinary action against appellant based on that testimony.
We believe, however, that this contention of the appellant is untenable for two reasons.
In the first place, Section 4903.08, Revised Code, provides that no person shall be subjected to any "penalty or forfeiture." A forfeiture has been defined as a divestiture of property without compensation in consequence of some default or act forbidden by law. 19 Ohio Jurisprudence, 204, Forfeiture and Penalties, Section 2. A penalty has been defined as a sum of money exacted by way of punishment for the doing of some act which is prohibited, or from omitting to do something which is required to be done. 19 Ohio Jurisprudence, 212, Forfeitures and Penalties, Section 15.
A certificate or permit issued to a motor transportation company is a revocable license which confers no property rights upon the holder. Scheible, Mayor, v. Hogan, 113 Ohio St. 83, 148 N.E. 581; Alspaugh v. Public Utilities Commission, 146 Ohio St. 267, 65 N.E.2d 263. Since the revocation of a permit or a certificate can not therefore divest the holder of any property right, and since the payment of a sum of money is not involved, the revocation of a permit may easily be distinguished from both a penalty and a forfeiture.
In the second place, the statute provides that the person who testifies shall not be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture. In this case the person who testified was appellant's president and he is a person separate and distinct from the appellant.
Judge Hart, in the case of In re Bott, 146 Ohio St. 511, 66 N.E.2d 918, said:
"* * * corporations are not entitled to all the constitutional immunities and protections in private security which private individuals have in such matters. Hence, an officer of a corporation can not refuse to produce its records in his possession, upon the plea that they either will incriminate him or may incriminate it." (Emphasis added.)
The remaining question in this appeal is whether the commission erred in refusing to disqualify the chairman from participating in this matter.
The Public Utilities Commission is a creature of statute and is the only body in this state that can act in cases of this character. In matters involving public utilities it has exclusive jurisdiction. It is conceded that the General Assembly has not directed that any member of the commission shall disqualify himself under any circumstances and no provision is made in the statutes for the determination of the fact of disqualification. Nor is there a provision for a substitute to replace a commissioner if he should be disqualified because of bias or prejudice.
The General Assembly has acted with respect to the disqualification of judges for bias or prejudice. Section 2501.13, Revised Code, provides for the disqualification of a judge of a Court of Appeals; Section 2701.03, Revised Code, provides for the disqualification of a judge of a Court of Common Pleas; and Section 2937.20, Revised Code, provides for the disqualification of a magistrate or a judge of a court inferior to the Court of Common Pleas.
Not only has the General Assembly made specific provision for the disqualification of certain judges and magistrates but it has provided for the substitution of another judge or magistrate to hear a case when one is disqualified. In the light of this legislative action, it would seem that an argument that the commission has the implied power to determine whether one of its members is disqualified on the ground of prejudice or bias must fail. If two members of the commission are to decide the disqualification of the third member, who will decide the disqualification of two members in the event affidavits of prejudice are filed against them? The argument can be made ad absurdum. As stated, in substance, in the brief of the commission, it may well be that there should be a provision for the disqualification of a member of the Public Utilities Commission on the ground of prejudice and bias. However, that is a question for the General Assembly.
A review of the matters relied upon by appellant as showing personal prejudice on the part of the chairman has not convinced this court that such prejudice existed. It indicates only a belief that action should be taken against motor transportation companies if and when they violate the laws of this state. This court can certainly not condemn an attitude such as that on the part of a chairman of a commission charged with the duty of supervision of motor transportation companies.
But assuming, for the sake of argument, that such prejudice existed we cannot say that it was prejudicial to the appellant. All three members of the Public Utilities Commission agreed on the facts in this case; the dissenting member differed only on the punishment. Even if the member alleged to have been prejudiced should not have participated, this court is of the opinion that the evidence before the commission amply supports the order it made.
For the reasons above stated, the orders of the Public Utilities Commission are affirmed.
Orders affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART and TAFT, JJ., concur.