Case Name: Co-operative Legislative Committee of the Transportation Brotherhoods and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1965-03-24
Citations: 1 Ohio St. 2d 187
Docket Number: No. 38917
Parties: Co-operative Legislative Committee of the Transportation Brotherhoods and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Appellee.
Judges: Tart, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, 0 ’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Second Series
Volume: 1
Pages: 187–188

Head Matter:
Co-operative Legislative Committee of the Transportation Brotherhoods and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Appellee.
[Cite as Co-operative Legislative Committee v. Public Utilities Commission, 1 Ohio St. 2d 187.]
(No. 38917
Decided March 24, 1965.)
Messrs. Tyler, Richards & Grieser and Mr. William R. Richards, for appellant.
Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, Mr. Jay C. Flowers and Mr. Theodore K. High, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Appellant filed a complaint against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company for a claimed violation of Section 4999.08, Revised Code, which is quoted in the report of our recent decision in Co-operative Legislative Committee of the Transportation Brotherhoods and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Public Utilities Commission (1964), 177 Ohio St. 101, at 102.
The complaint relates to the movement of diesel locomotives in the Cincinnati terminal area; and is directed against the use of a three-man crew in moving more than one diesel locomotive where one or more of them are not under power. In such instance, it is contended that a diesel locomotive being moved while not under power is a car and that therefore Section 4999.08, Revised Code, requires that there be a five-man crew.
The case is before this court on appeal from the order of the Public Utilities Commission dismissing the complaint.
As held in the above-cited case, this statute, being a penal statute, must be strictly construed.
Therefore, in our opinion, a diesel locomotive, being moved while not under power, is not a "car," within the meaning of that statute.
Order affirmed.
Tart, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, 0 'Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.