Plaintiff was a large, diversified land and water carrier operating throughout the Puget Sound area. Since 1962, when it absorbed the only other motor carrier providing such service, plaintiff had had the sole certification for "regular route, scheduled service" between south Kitsap County and the city of Seattle. When the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission [hereinafter cited as W.U.T.C.] granted additional "regular route, scheduled service" authority for the same area to one of the plaintiff's motor freight competitors, plaintiff filed suit to have the board's decision declared invalid. Plaintiff argued that the W.U.T.C.'s finding that "adequate" service was being given in the area precluded any additional certification, and that his high operating ratio and possible loss of revenue would necessarily lead to such a deterioration of service as to require denial of applicant's petition for increased authority. The Washington Supreme Court held: a possible loss of revenue and the existence of presently adequate service does not prevent authorization of additional competition required by present or future public convenience and necessity. Black Ball Freight Service, Inc. v. Washington Util. and Transp. Comm'n, 74 Wn. 2d 871, 447 P.2d 597 (1968).
Administrative Law—Common Carriers—Route Certification: Regulated Competition Favored under Public Convenience and Necessity Standard—Black Ball Freight Service, Inc. v. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 74 Wn. 2d 871, 447 P.2d 597 (1968),
45 Wash. L. Rev.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol45/iss4/7