15 Utah 2d 139 389 P.2d 57

389 P.2d 57

WYCOFF COMPANY, Incorporated, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of Utah, Hal S. Bennett, et al., its Commissioners, Defendants and Appellants, Utah Motor Transport Association, Amicus Curiae.

No. 9915.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 5, 1964.

A. Pratt Kesler, Atty. Gen., H. Wright Volker, Keith E. Sohm, Asst. Attys. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.

Wayne C. Durham, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

Richards, Bird & Hart, Salt Lake City, for amicus curiae.

CALLISTER, Justice:

In an action for declaratory judgment the lower court held unconstitutional the Utah Motor Carrier Act.1 That court held that the exemptions provided in the Act were discriminatory to those motor carriers, not exempt, and denied them the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Amendment XIV of the U. S. Constitution2 and *140Article I, Section 7 of the Utah State Constitution.3 From this judgment the Utah Public Service Commission appeals.

The Commission upon this appeal makes the contentions that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as Wycoff), being a licensed carrier, is estopped to challenge the constitutionality of the act in question, having been the recipient of its benefits, and that it is not in a position to question the validity of the Act because it has not been harmfully affected by its terms. With these contentions we do not concern ourselves because ,the disposition of the case upon other and more fundamental grounds renders them moot.

The Motor Carrier Act provides that it is a misdemeanor to violate any of its provisions and further provides for fines and other penalties to be imposed upon a violator.4 Because of certain violations of the Act, the Commission imposed a fine upon Wycoff, a licensed common carrier, which action was upheld by this court.5 Subsequently, the Commission commenced proceedings in the District Court of Salt Lake County to collect the fine. This matter is still pending, awaiting the outcome of this declaratory judgment action.

In the instant case, the lower court held that the exemption provisions of 54-6-12, U.C.A.1953,6 as amended, were discrimina*141tory and rendered the whole Act unconstitutional and void. If the lower court were right, the imposition of the fine would also be void.

In support of the lower court’s decision, Wycoff relies principally on Smith v. Cahoon.7 In that case a private motor carrier was arrested for failure to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity and pay a mileage tax as required by a Florida statute8 -which applied to “all transportation companies” without making any distinction between common carriers and private or contract carriers. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute, holding that its *142provisions which were “legally applicable” only to common carriers, were not ap-: plicable to private carriers. It did not attempt to designate which these were other than to say that a private carrier must procure the certificate and pay the tax.9 Upon appeal the United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that since no line of severance of provisions was indicated on its face, the statute applied in toto to all within its scope and that it is beyond the power of a state by legislative fiat to convert a private carrier into a common carrier. Thus, the “due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was violated.

The foregoing constitutional objections are not involved in the instant case. However, in Smith v. Cahoon, the Supreme Court also held that the exemptions contained in the Florida statute were discriminatory and violative of the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Florida statute exempted from all its provisions auto transportation companies engaged exclusively in the transportation of argicultural, horticultural, dairy, farm products, etc. One of the statutory provisions from which they were exempt was that requiring an auto transportation company to furnish a bond or insurance policy to afford security for the public against injuries as well as for. the protection of persons and property transported.

The Supreme Court recognized the principle that a state has broad discretion in classification in the exercise of its power of regulation, but stated:

“In the present instance, the regulation as to the giving of a bond or insurance policy to protect the public generally, in order to be sustained, must be deemed to relate to the public safety. * * * So far as the statute was designed to safeguard the public with respect to the use of the highways, we think that the discrimination it makes between the private carriers which are relieved of the necessity of obtaining certificates and giving security, and a carrier such as the appellant, was wholly arbitrary, and constituted a violation of appellant’s constitutional right. * * *”10

The possibility of a like discrimination in the Utah Motor Carrier Act was removed by the legislature in 1957 when it adopted an amendment to 54-6-12, U.C.A. 195311 requiring the enumerated exempt carriers to provide insurance, comply with *143safety regulations, and to comply with the provisions relative to accident reports.12

We have given careful consideration to classes of transportation exempted under 54-6-12 and conclude that in each instance the classification is reasonable. For the most part, the transportation exempted is casual, seasonal, slow-moving, not on regular routes or schedules, frequently in special equipment, and for comparatively short distances. Each of the exemptions have been held reasonable by other courts.13

Reversed. No costs awarded.

HENRIOD, C. J., and McDONOUGH, CROCKETT and WADE, JJ., concur.

Wycoff Co. v. Public Service Commission
15 Utah 2d 139 389 P.2d 57

Case Details

Name
Wycoff Co. v. Public Service Commission
Decision Date
Feb 5, 1964
Citations

15 Utah 2d 139

389 P.2d 57

Jurisdiction
Utah

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!