CO Code § 40-10.1-116 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 40 - Utilities|Article 10.1 - Motor Carriers|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 40-10.1-116. Commission to Notify Local Authorities - Procedure

  Whenever the commission is of the opinion that a motor carrier is failing or omitting to do anything required of it by law or by any order, decision, rule, direction, or requirement of the commission or is acting or is about to act or permitting an act or about to permit an act in violation of the law or of any order, decision, rule, direction, or requirement of the commission, the commission shall request the attorney general of the state or the district attorney of any district to commence an action or proceeding in the district court in and for the county or city and county in which the cause or some part thereof arose or in which the motor carrier complained of maintains a principal place of business or resides. Such action or proceeding must be conducted in accordance with section 40-7-104; except that references in section 40-7-104 to the attorney general include any district attorney bringing the action or proceeding.    Appellate review may be obtained in the supreme court concerning a final judgment in an action or proceeding under this section in the same manner and with the same effect, subject to this article, as appellate review of judgments of the district court in other actions for mandamus or injunction.    A person injured by the noncompliance of a motor carrier with this article or any other provision of law or an order, decision, rule, direction, or requirement of the commission may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement thereof, and the court has jurisdiction to enforce obedience thereto by injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, and to restrain the motor carrier and its officers, agents, employees, or representatives from further disobedience thereof, or to enjoin upon them obedience to the same, and any person so injured has cause of action in damages and is privileged to pursue the usual and proper remedies as in any other case.     History. Source: L. 2011: Entire article added,(HB 11-1198), ch. 127, p. 405, § 1, effective August 10.    ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. Since § 40-10.1-116 is similar to §§ 40-10-115 and 40-11-113 as they existed prior to the 2011 reorganization of the motor carrier statutes, relevant cases construing those sections have been included in the annotations to this section.   The public utilities commission (PUC) has been granted legislative authority to invoke the aid of the attorney general and to resort to the courts to see to it that laws, rules, regulations, orders, and decisions dealing with public utilities are obeyed, enforced, and made effective. The PUC can do this on its own volition and no doubt could and would do so at the request of an aggrieved party. Don Ward, Inc. v. Miller, 154 Colo. 370 , 390 P.2d 812 (1964).   Investigation and enforcement. The general assembly did not by these sections contemplate that every alleged violation of the terms of a certificate of public convenience and necessity had to be heard in a court of record. The commission has inherent power to investigate alleged violations and to make its orders, subject to review as provided by law. Enforcement of its orders may become a matter for judicial determination in which event this section applies. Eveready Freight Serv., Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 131 Colo. 172 , 280 P.2d 442 (1955); Don Ward, Inc. v. Miller, 154 Colo. 370 , 390 P.2d 812 (1964).   The PUC is clothed with general powers to regulate and control carriers for hire within the state. Hanseman v. Hamilton, 176 F. Supp. 371 (D. Colo. 1959 ).   Section has no extraterritorial effect. It is generally presumed that a statute was not intended to have extraterritorial effect unless there is definite expression of such intent; there is no such definitive expression in this section. Hanseman v. Hamilton, 176 F. Supp. 371 (D. Colo. 1959 ).   Section prescribes procedure. When the commission seeks enforcement of its final orders, decisions, and rules relating to motor vehicle carriers, this section prescribes the procedure to be adopted and followed in the enforcement of said orders, decisions, and rules. Eveready Freight Serv., Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 131 Colo. 172 , 280 P.2d 442 (1955).   Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction over enforcement of orders. Although the supreme court recognized and gave full force and effect to the statute vesting PUC with authority to see to it that the law is complied with and to that end to invoke the aid of the attorney general and the courts, such holding cannot be construed to mean that the commission has exclusive jurisdiction over enforcement of its orders. Don Ward, Inc. v. Miller, 154 Colo. 370 , 390 P.2d 812 (1964).   This section grants to an aggrieved party in plain and unequivocal language the right to institute and maintain an action to restrain a private carrier from violating its certificate to the damage of plaintiff--common carrier; and vest the court, if such be necessary, with jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the matter. Don Ward, Inc. v. Miller, 154 Colo. 370 , 390 P.2d 812 (1964).   Administrative remedies need not be exhausted. The language of this section imposes no conditions to be met prior to invoking the aid of the district court, and the trial court in holding that the court was without jurisdiction until and unless the plaintiff had exhausted its administrative remedies, was in error. Don Ward, Inc. v. Miller, 154 Colo. 370 , 390 P.2d 812 (1964).   The trial court has power to enjoin the defendant from operating in violation of the terms of his permit and to punish him for contempt for violation of its order. Resler v. North E. Motor Freight, Inc., 154 Colo. 52 , 388 P.2d 255 (1964); Don Ward, Inc. v. Miller, 154 Colo. 370 , 390 P.2d 812 (1964).   Where a certificated carrier filed an action in the district court seeking to enjoin another certificated carrier from transporting freight beyond the scope of the authority granted and to the injury of the plaintiff, the supreme court held that the trial court has power to enjoin the defendant from operating in violation of the terms of his permit and to punish him for contempt for violation of its order. Don Ward, Inc. v. Miller, 154 Colo. 370 , 390 P.2d 812 (1964).   Applied in McDill v. North E. Motor Freight, Inc., 92 Colo. 198 , 19 P.2d 204 (1933).