Green Bay & Western Railroad v. Public Service Commission

Citations: 269 Wis. 178; 68 N.W.2d 828; 1955 Wisc. LEXIS 500

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court; March 8, 1955; Wisconsin; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Five key issues are raised in the appeal by Green Bay Western Railroad Company against the Public Service Commission regarding the establishment of a new highway crossing at grade over a railroad. 

1. The Public Service Commission is questioned whether it must make an ultimate finding of fact that a proposed new crossing will promote "public safety" before authorizing it under sec. 195.29 (1) Stats.
2. If such a finding is required, the appeal examines whether the commission complied with this requirement in the current case.
3. It is also considered whether the commission's affirmative finding on public safety is supported by substantial evidence in the complete record.
4. The constitutionality of the Public Service Commission's order and the statute under which it was issued is challenged, claiming it deprives the Railroad Company of property without due process.
5. Finally, the appeal questions whether the Railroad Company is entitled to compensation for the reduction in value of its right-of-way property due to the new crossing.

The court interprets sec. 195.29 (1) as requiring the commission to promote public safety in all crossing matters, including new crossings. The trial judge's finding emphasized that a clear determination regarding safety should be made to ensure it has been duly considered. Although the commission's order indicated that establishing the new crossing was "advisable," it lacked a specific safety finding. However, the commission did state that the crossing would be safe with certain protective measures, although this was not categorized explicitly as a finding of ultimate fact regarding safety.

The trial court concluded that the Public Service Commission's finding regarding safety met the substantial compliance requirements of sec. 195.29 (1) Stats. However, it noted that the Commission should have included this finding under "Findings of Ultimate Fact" as per sec. 227.13. The Railroad Company argued that the safety finding lacked substantial evidence, citing its position that a grade crossing is unsafe and should be replaced with an overhead structure or overpass. 

The proposed crossing at Military Avenue will intersect the Railroad Company's Howard yard, which includes a main track and two passing tracks, with no existing highway crossing in the area. The new crossing will be positioned at a right angle to the tracks, which run east-west, while Military Avenue runs north-south. The Railroad operates freight trains daily and conducts switching operations in the yard. During peak hours, especially between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m., train congestion may require trains to switch across Military Avenue, complicating traffic flow.

The State Highway Commission estimated 1,200 vehicles per day would use the crossing, peaking at 120 per hour, but the Railroad Company contested this, suggesting the actual count could be around 3,000 vehicles due to local traffic from major businesses. The area has good visibility for drivers approaching the crossing, and trains travel at a maximum of 50 miles per hour. Additionally, the Railroad plans to expand the Howard yard to alleviate congestion, although this requires land acquisition, zoning amendments, and consent from interchanging railroads, which have not yet been achieved.

Testimony from the State Highway Commission indicated that an overhead grade separation would be impractical and unsafe due to its required incline, which would disrupt traffic on an adjacent street, creating hazards. An underpass was deemed unfeasible without special drainage facilities, though the Railroad Company was willing to construct and maintain these facilities. The legislature, through sec. 195.29 (1) Stats., grants the commission broad discretion in determining whether a grade crossing is permissible or if an overhead or underpass structure is necessary to enhance public safety. While an overhead structure or underpass is generally safer than a grade crossing with automatic signals, the statute does not mandate the safest option but rather what is reasonably necessary for safety. The reviewing court noted it lacks the authority to reassess evidence but found that the Public Service Commission's conclusion on safety was supported by substantial evidence. 

Regarding constitutional concerns, the trial judge ruled that the statute allowing property taking without just compensation is constitutional because the petitioner can seek remedies under condemnation statutes. Subsection (8) of sec. 195.29 allows for acquiring lands necessary for the statute's implementation, which applies to the new highway crossing over the Railroad Company's right of way. Consequently, there is no provision in sec. 195.29 or the commission's order that prevents the Railroad Company from pursuing condemnation for compensation related to the easement, affirming that the statute and order are constitutional.

The attorney general has requested the court to rule that the state can create a new highway crossing over a railroad's tracks without compensating the railroad. The argument is based on the premise that since the state allowed railroads to lay tracks across public highways at no cost, the state has a reciprocal right, under common law or sec. 190.02 (5) Stats., to establish crossings without payment. The attorney general cites U.S. Supreme Court cases that assert the state's police power allows it to require railroads to build and maintain safety structures at new crossings, but these cases do not directly address compensation for the easement taken from the railroad. 

The Wisconsin court previously distinguished between compensating the railroad for the easement and requiring it to bear the costs of safety measures. In a prior case, while the court recognized the railroad's right to compensation for the diminished value of its property due to the new crossing, it ruled that the state could mandate the railroad to provide safety features like cattle guards without additional compensation. The court referenced a different ruling where a jury assessed minimal damages to the railroad for a street extension across its tracks, reaffirming this position.

The United States Supreme Court addressed whether it could overturn a jury's verdict that awarded the railroad company $1 in damages, arguing that this amount constituted a violation of the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to deprivation of property. The Court ruled in favor of the city, agreeing with the Illinois Supreme Court's conclusion that compensation for the railroad was limited to the reduction in its right to use its tracks due to the new highway crossing. Additionally, costs incurred by the railroad for constructing safety measures, like gates and a control tower, were deemed non-compensable, as the railroad accepted its charter with the understanding that the state could impose safety requirements. The Court noted its alignment with a previous case, Chicago, M. St. P. R. Co. v. Milwaukee, affirming that the railroad could seek compensation for any decrease in the value of its right-of-way resulting from the highway crossing established by the State Highway Commission. The judgment was affirmed. Additionally, it was noted that any decision made by an agency in a contested case must be documented in writing, including findings of fact and conclusions of law.