Appeal, No. 40, March T., 1963, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. 17455, in case of Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Order affirmed.
Donald A. Brinkworth, for appellant.
Joseph F. McCloskey, Assistant Counsel, with him Joseph Bruno, Chief Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.
Albert D. Brandon, with him Stephen A. Glickman, and Brandon & Shearer, for intervening appellees.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 202 Pa. Super. Page 115]
OPINION BY MONTGOMERY, J.
This is an appeal by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company from two orders of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission requiring it to construct a pedestrian crossing over its tracks in its Kiski Junction
[ 202 Pa. Super. Page 116]
Yard for the use of its employes entering and leaving the yard. The orders were the result of a complaint filed with the Commission by the Co-Operative Legislative Committee, Railroad Brotherhoods in the State of Pennsylvania, and William P. Fullerton, one of appellant's employes, which charged, inter alia, that "On the way proceeding to the Kiski Junction Yard Office the men must proceed over an extremely hazardous pedestrian crossing over the tracks of the said Kiski Junction Yard. The average delay occasioned by trains on said tracks is approximately one-half hour both in going to work and in coming from work and as a result many men climb through trains and over trains on the Main Line East and West, primarily the Main Line East, and also must proceed over and through yard trains on many of the yard tracks." The crossing is private and is used principally by the employes of appellant to reach an automobile parking lot provided by appellant for its employes and located across the tracks from the yard at a higher elevation.
The only question raised by the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the Commission that such a hazardous condition exists, or is such as to justify the expenditure of $17,600 estimated as necessary for its elimination.
Since no question as to the Commission's jurisdiction is involved, on our review of the case we are under no duty to exercise independent judgment or to weigh conflicting evidence but are limited to the determination of whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings and orders of the Commission. Gradison Auto Bus Company, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 199 Pa. Superior Ct. 303, 184 A.2d 334.
Our close examination of the record discloses sufficient evidence to establish the following facts. There are seven tracks at this crossing, two of which are main line ...