Summary
In Denver-Climax Truck Line, we determined that there was evidence in the record to support the Commission's determination that Jim Chelf, Inc., a contract carrier which transported concrete pipes to points served by a common carrier and provided the additional service of stringing the pipes along the proposed pipeline route, was not in competition with the common carrier, but rather was rendering a highly specialized service that was not substantially the same or similar to the service offered by the common carrier.
Summary of this case from Regular Route Common Carrier Conference of the Colorado Motor Carriers Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionOpinion
No. 23109.
Decided September 30, 1968.
From a judgment of trial court affirming a ruling of the Public Utilities Commission in tariff dispute which held that private carrier was not competing with common carrier, error was brought.
Affirmed.
1. CARRIERS — Private — Not Competing — Common — Specialized Service — Dissimilar — Tariff — Rates — Less — Lawful. Record reflects sufficient evidence to support findings and conclusions of the Public Utilities Commission that private carrier was not competing with common carrier, but was offering a custom service requiring specialized equipment and highly specialized drivers, and that tariff filed by private carrier for transporting concrete pipe to points served by common carrier was lawful even though calling for rates less than those of common carrier.
2. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION — Controverted Issue — Tariff Dispute — Resolution. A controverted issue of fact in a tariff dispute should be resolved by the Public Utilities Commission, and not the courts.
Error to the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable James C. Flanigan, Judge.
John P. Thompson, for plaintiffs in error.
John J. Conway, for defendant in error Contract Carriers Conference of the Colorado Motor Carriers Association.
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Robert Lee Kessler, Assistant, for defendant in error Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado.
The ultimate issue to be resolved in this writ of error is whether C.R.S. 1963, 115-11-5(2) requires that Jim Chelf, Inc., a private carrier, change rates which are no less than those of Denver-Climax Truck Lines, Inc., a common carrier, when the former is transporting concrete pipe to points served by Denver-Climax.
The more precise issue posed by this writ of error is whether Chelf is in fact "competing" with Denver-Climax by rendering a service which is "substantially the same or similar" to that offered by Denver-Climax. It is agreed by the parties that if Chelf is thus competing with Denver-Climax by rendering a service which is substantially the same or similar to that offered by Denver-Climax, then by virtue of C.R.S. 1963, 115-11-5(2) Chelf's rates cannot be less than the rates of Denver-Climax. However, if Chelf is not competing with Denver-Climax and if the former is not rendering a service substantially the same or similar to that of Denver-Climax, then the terms and provisions of C.R.S. 1963, 115-11-5(2) do not come into play and the tariff filed by Chelf with the Public Utilities Commission is lawful, even though calling for rates less than those of Denver-Climax.
The Public Utilities Commission held a lengthy hearing on this matter at which time the testimony of some seven witnesses was taken. Eventually the Commission made a determination that Chelf was not "competing" with Denver-Climax or other common carrier and that on the contrary Chelf was offering a "highly specialized" service which was not substantially the same or similar to that offered by Denver-Climax. Hence, the only question we are now called upon to resolve is whether there is evidence to support the determination thus made by the Commission.
[1-2] Our study of the record as made before the Commission convinces us that there is evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the Commission, and such being the case the decision of the Commission must be upheld. We perceive no good purpose in detailing the evidence which in our view supports the determination of the Commission that Chelf was not offering a service which was "substantially the same" as the service offered by Denver-Climax, but on the contrary was offering a "custom service" requiring "specialized equipment" and "highly trained drivers" which, among other things, enabled Chelf to "string" the pipe along the proposed pipeline route. True, there was testimony to the contrary, but this posed a dispute issue to be resolved by the Commission, and not the courts. Southeast Colorado Power Association v. P.U.C., 163 Colo. 92, 428 P.2d 939.
The judgment of the trial court, which upheld the decision of the Commission, is therefore affirmed.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE, MR. JUSTICE HODGES and MR. JUSTICE GROVES concur.