Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COLONIAL PRODUCTS COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. (12/09/58)

December 9, 1958

COLONIAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.



Appeal, No. 12, Oct. T., 1958, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Complaint Docket No. 16252, in case of Colonial Products Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

Robert B. Einhorn, with him Einhorn and Schachtel, for appellant.

Miles Warner, Assistant Counsel, with him Jack F. Aschinger, Assistant Counsel, and Thomas M. Kerrigan, Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.

Frank B. Boyle, with him Laucks, Boyle & Monroe, for intervening appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Rhodes

[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 165]

OPINION BY RHODES, P.J.

On December 31, 1954, the Colonial Products Company, Dallastown, York County, filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission as to the service provided by the Dallastown-Yoe Water Company. It was alleged that the water company had refused to provide adequate pressure and quantities of water needed for the fire protection of the industrial property of Colonial and for the protection of life and property in the community of Dallastown.

Hearings were held on February 3 and March 11, 1955. Witnesses appeared on behalf of Colonial and on behalf of the water company; neither the authorities of the Borough of Dallastown nor any other customer of the water company appeared. After consideration of the evidence the commission concluded that the existing facilities of the water company were providing adequate public fire protection, and that the cost of the additional facilities desired by Colonial to improve its individual fire protection service would have been an unreasonable and unjust burden upon other customers of the utility.*fn1 The commission gave consideration to the fact that Colonial would not agree to participate with the water company in assuming the additional expense burden involved even though it would have been the major beneficiary of the improvements desired. Accordingly, the commission, by its order of February 20, 1956, dismissed the complaint of Colonial. After the dismissal on August 5, 1957, of its request for reargument, rescission, and modification of the order, Colonial appealed to this Court.

[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 166]

In substance the complaint of Colonial related to the amount of pressure and flow of water available for fire protection through the hydrant system and for maintenance of the plant sprinkler system.

Under section 401 of the Public Utility Law, 66 PS ยง 1171, every public utility is required to furnish and maintain "adequate, efficient, safe, and reasonable service and facilities, ..."

The Dallastown-Yoe Water Company has furnished water service to the public in the Boroughs of Dallastown and Yoe since 1918. Dallastown, here involved, has a population of approximately 3,500. The entire water system is operated by gravity from a standpipe having a capacity of 300,000 gallons, located at the highest elevation in the borough. All of the water is purchased from the Red Lion Water Company, located in the adjacent Borough of Red Lion, and is distributed through a grid system. In addition to the standpipe storage capacity the water company has available the storage capacity ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.