Opinion ID: 360503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: applicability of the maurer tariff

Text: 5 The Maurer Tariff is applicable to hazardous materials held on railroad premises; shipments held in railroad cars are deemed to be on railroad premises if: (1) such cars are located on track that a railroad provides for its own use and purposes or for general public use; or (2) such cars are situated on any other track located inside a railroad's right-of-way, yard or terminals, except tracks located on, or within the confines of, property owned or leased by an industry. Rule 6, § 2, Freight Tariff 4-I (ICC H-36). The district court held that the Gas Company's cars were located on railroad premises, as defined in the first branch of the above definition, because, by the terms of the lease agreement, the Railroad reserved the right to use the track on which the shipments were stored for its own purposes. The court correctly concluded that the track was held for the Railroad's own uses and purposes, and, therefore, constituted railroad premises. 6 Even though there is no evidence that the leased track was actually used by the Railroad for its own purposes, the retention of the right to use it means that the track nevertheless was subject to the Railroad's control; it was not subject to the exclusive use of the Gas Company. The tariff is intended to promote public safety by encouraging the prompt shipment and unloading of dangerous materials whose storage in railroad cars produces a risk of serious accident. Cf. Western Petroleum Refiners Association v. Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad, 1922, 66 ICC 58, 62 (predecessor tariff); International Agricultural Corp. v. Atlanta & West Point Railroad, 1914, 32 ICC 199, 200-01 (similar tariff). Its purpose could be easily avoided if its application were evaded by permitting private use of railroad tracks in conjunction with their contemporaneous public use. Three cases involving predecessor tariffs with different definitions of railroad premises recognized that private tracks in certain circumstances could be considered railroad premises for purposes of applying tariffs on storage of hazardous materials. See Malloy and Dickenson v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad, 1928, 140 ICC 576; Skelly Oil Co. v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad, 1927, 123 ICC 517. 7 Even if the first part of the definition of railroad premises provided in Rule 6 were not applicable in this case, the arrangement in question involved railroad premises under its second portion. That branch of the definition provides an exception for track located on Property owned or leased by an industry, as opposed to Track leased by an industry. This language, viewed in the light of the purpose of the Maurer Tariff, suggests an intention to except from the tariff private sidings located on industry property and private track situated on property not used by a railroad to serve the general public; in either situation serious danger to the public would not be likely in the event of an accident. Cf. Malloy and Dickenson, supra; Skelly Oil Co., supra. The exception does not appear to have been intended to cover property in a railroad yard primarily used for the purpose of serving the general public. 8 Moreover, we are not here concerned merely with the past operation of the tariff; to adopt the Gas Company's views would permit future avoidance of the safety purposes of the Maurer Tariff. As the district court noted, (t)he purpose of the Maurer Tariff clearly would be stultified if imposition of fees under the tariff could be avoided by a consignee of hazardous materials through the leasing, for a nominal amount, of storage tracks located in a railroad yard in an urban area. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v. Golden Triangle Wholesale Gas Co., N.D.Miss.1976, 423 F.Supp. 679, 682-83. 9