Case Title: Public Utilities Commission v. Verl Harvey, Inc.

Citation: 371 P.2d 452

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1962-05-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
371 P.2d 452 (1962) PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of the State of Colorado; Watson, Inc., a Colorado Corporation; and Harold E. Watson, Jr., Plaintiffs in Error, v. VERL HARVEY, INC., a Colorado corporation, d/b/a Don Ward & Co.; The Colorado and Southern Railway Company, a corporation; The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, a corporation; The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company, a corporation; and Union Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, Defendants in Error. No. 19698. Supreme Court of Colorado. In Department. May 14, 1962. Rehearing Denied May 28, 1962. Second Petition for Rehearing Denied June 11, 1962. *453 Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John J. Conway, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff in error, Public Utilities Comm. of the State of Colorado. E. B. Evans, Denver, for plaintiffs in error, Watson, Inc. and Harold E. Watson, Jr. Grant, Shafroth, Toll & McHendrie, Charles H. Haines, Jr., T. A. White, Clayton D. Knowles, John C. Street, Willard M. Peck, Denver, for defendants in error. HALL, Justice. Herein we refer to the plaintiffs in error as follows: Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado, as the "Commission"; Watson, Inc. and Harold E. Watson, Jr., as "Watson." We refer to defendants in error as "Respondents," or by name. From the record before us it appears that: On September 29, 1930, the commission issued to Harry Matteson Trucking Service PUC Certificate No. 498. This certificate granted authority to conduct: On August 2, 1947, Watson acquired and at all times since said date has owned and *454 now owns said Certificate No. 498 and all operating rights granted thereby. On July 10, 1952, the commission issued to Verl Harvey PUC Certificate No. 2177, granting to him authority to transport: Since March 14, 1959, Verl Harvey, Inc. has been the owner of said certificate and has been rendering service to the public, pursuant to and in conformity with authority granted by said certificate. The other respondents at all times mentioned herein have been and now are certificated and regulated common carriers of freight, including cement. On January 14, 1955, Watson filed with the commission his application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to transport cement in truckload lots to all points in Colorado. Such authority to be a new and separate authority and not an extension of authority granted by PUC Certificate No. 498. On January 18, 1955, Verl Harvey filed with the commission a complaint, wherein he charged Watson with (1) engaging in the business of hauling cement without authority and in direct and aggressive competition with Harvey's operations conducted pursuant to authority granted to him by the commission, as evidenced by PUC Certificate No. 2177; (2) maintaining a branch office in Denver in direct violation of that portion of his PUC Certificate No. 498, which forbids Watson from maintaining an office outside of Loveland. Hearing on the above-mentioned complaint was had on May 4 and 5, 1955. On June 28, 1955, the commission made findings holding that Watson's cement operations were without authority and in violation of law, and also found that he was maintaining an office in Denver contrary to the terms of his PUC Certificate No. 498. Having so found, the commission ordered Watson to cease and desist from such unlawful acts. The commission in its statement, findings and order, among other things said: "* * * we do recognize our primary duty to confine any motor carrier's operations to the scope provided in that carrier's certificate of authority, as a fundamental necessity to *455 maintaining any system of regulation. * * *. The commission, on July 18, 1955, heard Watson's application for a new certificate and found: No appeal was taken from this decision. Watson took the necessary steps to have the cease and desist order entered June 28, 1955, reviewed by the district court, which court entered its judgment reversing the order of the commission, and which judgment of the district court was reversed by this court on October 14, 1958, and the order of the commission affirmed. Public Utilities Commission of Colorado v. Watson, 138 Colo. 108, 330 P.2d 138. Following entry of the order to cease and desist, and during the three years, three and one-half months consumed in having the matter reviewed and brought to a final conclusion by this court, and since the decision of this court and up to the present time, Watson has without interruption continued with and expanded his outlaw operations. Instead of desisting, he has persisted in his unauthorized operations with renewed vigor, more equipment, and extended his operations to points in Colorado not previously served. He has conducted a thriving state-wide business to the damage of licensed and lawful operators and in defiance of the commission, the law and the judgment of this court. After some seven years of unlawful operations, Watson did, on March 20, 1959, file with the commission his application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to transport: (b) Pyrites in bulk from Denver, Colorado, and a radius of five miles thereof, to Boettcher and to Portland, Colorado; (d) Crushed Marble from Glenwood Springs to all points in Colorado. The application was set for hearing and interested parties notified. At the hearing the Ideal Cement Company (not a party here) appeared urging approval of the application for transportation of pyrites in bulk from Denver, Colorado, and a radius of five miles thereof, to Boettcher and to Portland, Colorado. Respondents appeared and opposed the granting of any porton of the requested authority. In addition to the respondents, eight other certificated carriers (not here) appeared and opposed the granting of any portion of the requested authority. *456 After hearing, the commission, on July 6, 1959, entered its order granting to Watson, Inc., authority for the transportation of: On July 24, 1959, protestants filed petitions for rehearing. Rehearing was granted and further testimony taken on August 10, 1959. On January 20, 1960, an order of the commission was entered granting the authority above set forth. Petitions for rehearing were filed and on February 24, 1960, denied, whereupon the order became final. On March 24, 1960, the respondents filed their complaint in the district court seeking review of the foregoing final order. On October 25, 1960, the judge of the district court entered findings and judgment, stating: The commission, Watson, Inc., and Watson are here by writ of error seeking reversal. We find it impossible to reconcile the decision of the commission in this case with the facts presented or with its decision of July 18, 1955, wherein Watson, with only three years' illegal operations as a background, with lack of proof of need for additional service, was denied a certificate, and in this case with eight years of continuous, unlawful, defiant, contemptuous, expanded operations to his credit, and with a total lack of proof of need for additional service, is granted authority. In 1955 the commission held that Watson's operations were without authority and beyond the authority granted by PUC *457 Certificate No. 498, and in so deciding stated that: From the record before us it appears that that language can be used with reference to Watson's present application with the same propriety as applied to his first application. In its decision herein, the commission stated that: That statement ignores in toto the previous finding of the commission, affirmed by this court, that PUC Certificate No. 498 did not authorize Watson to haul cement except occasionally, if at all, and the above statement that he now seeks authority "to take care of the transportation business he has developed under his Certificate No. 498" is in direct conflict with the previous ruling of the commission and contrary to the decision of this court. The cement hauling business that he has built up is wholly unlawful. If that business were authorized by Certificate No. 498 and developed thereunder, then he needs no additional authority. The commission in its order granting Watson authority further stated: The commission does not point out any extenuating circumstances. We find none in the record, but do find an abundance of convincing, uncontradicted evidence, including Watson's admissions, orders of the commission and the judgment of this court, that all of Watson's actions have at all times been without authority; since 1955 they have been in defiance of the valid order of the commission, and since October 18, 1958, have been in direct and knowing violation of the judgment of this court. The persistent, protracted, intentional and knowingly doing of prohibited acts for five years is incompatible with a holding that said acts were done under extenuating circumstances. In granting authority, the commission further stated: We find nothing in the record to warrant any statement or inference that *458 Watson's violations were technical. The record is clear and uncontradicted that Watson for seven years hauled on an average of over one hundred and fifty loads of cement per month, each load weighing over twenty tons, every load hauled constituting an illegal operation. During that period of time over ninety percent of his income came from these unlawful acts. To refer to such conduct as a technical violation is somewhat at variance with our understanding of "technical violations." We recognize that it is the function of the commission to resolve questions of fact and that if its findings are supported by competent evidence the same will not be disturbed by the courts. Here the commission did find that public convenience and necessity justify the granting of authority to Watson and that the proposed service of Watson is in the public interest. We find no evidence in the record to warrant any such finding. Authorized carriers, according to the record, are well able to meet the requirements of the public; they have equipment and manpower available, both idle at times for lack of business. No shipper has ever complained to the commission of the refusal or inability of licensed carriers to meet their every demand. The substance of the testimony of some six shipper witnesses is that they at times use and like Watson's service and find it convenient to have the services of numerous and various carriers available. Understandably none had ever complained to the commission of lack of service for licensed carriers were ready, able and willing to serve all, and Watson's unlawful operations only served to make available an additional and unnecessary service. The commission, in In re Raymond H. Bodley, Application No. 1715, Decision No. 3143, said: Clearly the commission, in granting the authority to Watson, acted in a manner entirely out of harmony with its foregoing pronouncement. In Donahue v. Public Utilities Commission, Colo., 359 P.2d 1024 (decided February 27, 1961, after the commission's ruling herein), we said: "* * * The finding by the commission that, `* * * nor can we say that his [protestant's] service is adequate at this time,' falls far short of a finding of failure reasonably to supply the need. There is not sufficient competent evidence in this record to warrant any such finding. The finding which is called the `serious question' confronting the commission, namely, `Is there sufficient business to warrant two certificated carriers?' amounts to a repudiation of the basic concept upon which the structure of Public Utility Commission powers is based, namely, that of regulated monopoly. "In our opinion there is no competent evidence in the record before us to show need for the additional service by applicant. Nor can there be until protestant has had a reasonable time to demonstrate what may be done by him free and unfettered by the unauthorized competition to which he *459 has been subjected at all times pertinent to this action." (Emphasis supplied.) Also in Donahue, supra, we quoted with approval the following language: Presented to the commission in opposition to granting of any authority to Watson was the contention of protestants, supported by uncontradicted evidence, that licensed carriers were ready, able and willing to fill the requirements of shippers, including the needs of those who have been using the service of Watson. Instead of making a finding that additional facilities were or were not needed, the commission expressly avoided answering this very important question, and stated: There is no evidence in this record which would sustain a finding that adequate service was not available from licensed carriers. Certainly added authority should not be granted when there is no proof of need therefor. In denying Watson's application in 1955 the commission described Watson's then unlawful operation as "one which strikes at the very root of motor vehicle regulation." That language is particularly applicable to his present operations which have no sanction in law, cannot be condoned and must be terminated; otherwise regulation will be wholly ineffective and meaningless. The judgment is affirmed and the cause remanded with directions to the trial court to order the Commission to deny Watson's application and dismiss the proceedings. McWILLIAMS and PRINGLE, JJ., concur.