Araujo v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 0853

• Decision Date: 20 October 1986
• Docket Number: No. 0853,0853
• Citation: 351 S.E.2d 908,291 S.C. 54
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Adolph ARAUJO, Respondent, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Appellant. . Heard

Page 908

351 S.E.2d 908

291 S.C. 54

Adolph ARAUJO, Respondent, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 0853.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard Oct. 20, 1986.

Decided Dec. 29, 1986.

A. Camden Lewis, Columbia, Hugh L. Willcox, Jr., of Willcox, Hardee, McLeod, Buyck & Baker, Florence, and Fred A. Walters, of Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., Columbia, for appellant.

David W. Keller, Jr., of McGowan, Keller, Eaton, Brodie & Elmore, and James T McBratney, Jr., of Rogers and McBratney, Florence, for respondent.

GARDNER, Judge:

In this action Adolph Araujo (Araujo) alleges that Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (Southern Bell) negligently reported to June and George Gibson that he had made harassing, hang-up calls to their home and negligently failed to report the erroneous tracing to him before turning the information over to the police. The jury returned a verdict against Southern Bell for $25,000. We reverse and remand.

In March of 1983, June and George Gibson complained to Southern Bell that they had been receiving harassing, non-verbal, hang-up type telephone calls and requested Southern Bell to trace the calls. Southern Bell placed tracing equipment on the Gibson line. On March 26, 1983, the Gibsons received 29 hang-up phone calls; Southern Bell allegedly traced 28 of them to Araujo's home phone; of interest, the 29th was traced to McLeod's Medical Center in Florence, S.C., where Araujo's wife was employed.

Mr. Crawford, supervisor of Southern Bell's Annoyance Call Center, testified that after the completion of a tracing operation, it was Southern Bell's internal policy to attempt to contact a responsible person at the residence of the offending line and advise that person that harassing telephone calls had been traced to that residence. Mr. Crawford referred to these calls as deterrent calls and testified that the purpose was to bring about an end to the harassing calls and also to avoid the possibility of law enforcement officials becoming involved. Mr. Crawford testified that he made such a call on March 28, 1983, and advised Mrs. Araujo of the harassing calls; she denied having received the call from Mr. Crawford.

It was also Mr. Crawford's testimony that if the offended party requested that the results of the tracing operation be turned over to the police, a deterrent call was not made.

More than five months later, on September 2, 1983, Mr. Gibson again reported that he was receiving harassing, hang-up phone calls. Southern Bell again placed the tracing equipment on Gibson's telephone line and on September 8 a hang-up type phone call was traced to Araujo's residential phone.

On September 12, 1983, Mr. Gibson requested Southern Bell to disclose to the police the results of its tracing operation; on the same day the Gibsons filed a complaint with the Florence County Sheriff's Department. Eight days later, on September 20, 1983, Southern Bell disclosed to the Florence County Sheriff's Department the numbers and listings from which, according to its tracing operation, the harassing calls emanated; Southern Bell did not advise the Sheriff's Department or the Gibsons that a particular person made the calls.

Araujo's complaint in the negligence action specifies as acts of negligence (1) the negligent disclosure by Southern Bell to the Gibsons that Araujo had made the harassing calls and (2) the negligent failure of Southern Bell to notify Araujo of the results of the tracing operation prior to reporting it to the police. The complaint then alleges as a second cause of action that by the two acts of negligence Southern Bell...