B-147391, MAR. 6, 1962
Highlights
LTD.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED OCTOBER 5. THE BASIS OF YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS THAT. COULD HAVE BEEN LOADED IN EITHER OF THE 40-FOOT TRAILERS USED. YOU CONTEND THAT SINCE 8 FEET OF LOADING SPACE IN EACH TRAILER USED WAS NOT UTILIZED THE VEHICLES WERE NOT LOADED TO FULL CAPACITY. THAT OTHER GENERAL FREIGHT COULD HAVE BEEN LOADED IF EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE HAD NOT BEEN REQUESTED. OUR SETTLEMENT ACTION IS FOUNDED ON THE DECISION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN CURTIS LIGHTING. TO THE EFFECT THAT WHEN A VEHICLE IS SO LOADED THAT NO MORE OF THE SHIPMENT IN THE SHIPPING FORM TENDERED CAN BE LOADED IN OR ON THE VEHICLE. IT IS THEN LOADED TO CAPACITY. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE (PAGES 577 TO 578) THE COMMISSION REJECTED THE CARRIERS' ARGUMENT THAT "POSSIBLY IT COULD HAVE LOADED OTHER FREIGHT IN THE VEHICLE HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE SERVICE INDICATED TO HAVE BEEN REQUESTED.'.
B-147391, MAR. 6, 1962
TO WESTERN TRUCK LINES, LTD.:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED OCTOBER 5, 1961, IN WHICH YOU REQUEST REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1961, OUR FILE TK-712728, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF A SHIPMENT DESCRIBED AS: "2 T/L 4 (EA) CAMERAS MOUNTED ON TRAILERS" WEIGHING 32,000 POUNDS FROM HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO, TO THE NAVAL ORDNANCE TEST STATION, CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA, ON GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. AF 8758405, DATED AUGUST 6, 1958.
THE BASIS OF YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS THAT, WHILE YOU ADMIT ONLY TWO OF THE UNITS SHIPPED, EACH 16 FEET IN LENGTH, COULD HAVE BEEN LOADED IN EITHER OF THE 40-FOOT TRAILERS USED, YOU CONTEND THAT SINCE 8 FEET OF LOADING SPACE IN EACH TRAILER USED WAS NOT UTILIZED THE VEHICLES WERE NOT LOADED TO FULL CAPACITY, AS WE ASSERT, AND THAT OTHER GENERAL FREIGHT COULD HAVE BEEN LOADED IF EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE HAD NOT BEEN REQUESTED.
OUR SETTLEMENT ACTION IS FOUNDED ON THE DECISION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN CURTIS LIGHTING, INC. V. MID-STATES FREIGHT LINES, INC., 303 I.C.C. 576, TO THE EFFECT THAT WHEN A VEHICLE IS SO LOADED THAT NO MORE OF THE SHIPMENT IN THE SHIPPING FORM TENDERED CAN BE LOADED IN OR ON THE VEHICLE, IT IS THEN LOADED TO CAPACITY. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE (PAGES 577 TO 578) THE COMMISSION REJECTED THE CARRIERS' ARGUMENT THAT "POSSIBLY IT COULD HAVE LOADED OTHER FREIGHT IN THE VEHICLE HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE SERVICE INDICATED TO HAVE BEEN REQUESTED.' UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE PRECLUDES THE ALLOWANCE OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES EXCEEDING THOSE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE TRUCKLOAD RATE APPLIED TO THE TRUCKLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT EXCLUSIVE USE SERVICE IS REQUESTED AND THAT THERE IS A LITERAL COMPLIANCE WITH TARIFF PROVISIONS COVERING EXCLUSIVE USE.
THEREFORE, THE CHARGES AS COMPUTED BY OUR OFFICE ON THE BASIS OF THE TRUCKLOAD RATE AND MINIMUM TRUCKLOAD WEIGHT APPLICABLE ON THE COMMODITY INVOLVED WERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE. WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1961, WAS CORRECT AND IT IS SUSTAINED.