Bird v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company
| Decision Date | 28 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 3081.,3081. |
| Citation | 185 A.2d 917 |
| Parties | James F. BIRD, Appellant, v. The CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Herbert Leeman, Washington, a C., for appellant.
John P. Arness, Washington D: C., with whom Jeremiah C. Collins, Washington, D. C., was on the, brief, for Appellee. Charles Harrison, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, QUINN, Associate Judge, and CAYTON (Chief Judge, Retired) sitting by designation under Code § 11-776(b).
Appellant sued the telephone company for damages resulting from its alleged negligence in omitting his name and number froth the telephone directory. The trial court ruled that the company's liability was limited by a tariff provision on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the. District of Columbia.1 On the basis of that ruling, and with the consent of the company, judgment was entered for appellant for $39. Appellant contends that the limitation of liability was invalid and ineffective.
Under Code 1961, 43-401, an increase in rates by a public utility can be granted by the Public Utilities Commission only upon application to the Commission and after notice to interested parties and hearing and investigation. The company is presently operating under a basic rate schedule approved by the Commission and effective since August 13, 1954. The tariff provision here involved was accepted by the Commission, effective February 15, 1955, without the notice, hearing and investigation required by Code Section 43-401, and for that reason appellant contends it is invalid and of no effect.
Appellant's argument is that the Commission's approval of the limitation of liability had the effect of increasing the company's rate, and that such cannot be validly accomplished without full compliance with the provisions of Code Section 43-401.
The word "rate," when used in connection with public utilities, generally means "the price stated or fixed for some commodity or service of general need or utility supplied to the public, measured by a specified unit or standard." Lenawee County Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Adrian, 209 Mich. 52, 176 N.W. 590, 592, 10 A.L.R. 1328, 1331. See also, 73 C.J.S. Public Utilities § 13; 43 Am.Jur., Public Utilities and Service, § 82. The purpose of a utility rate is "reimbursement for expenses incurred in performing the service, return on the investment used in the service, and a reasonable profit on the transaction." Summerfield v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 252, 207 F.2d 200, 204.
In our opinion the requirements of Code Section 43-401 apply only to fixing or changing the basic rate to be charged by the utility, and those requirements are not binding on the Public Utilities Commission when called upon to approve a proposed rule or regulation which only indirectly and to a. minor degree affects the financial operation of the utility.2
Appellant further contends that the limitation of liability is unreasonable and therefore invalid. The reasonableness of a rule or regulation of a public utility is primarily a matter for determination by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Behrend v. Bell Tel. Co.
...Systems, Inc. v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 26 Cal.App.3d 454, 102 Cal.Rptr. 651 (1972); Bird v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 185 A.2d 917 (D.C.Mun.App.1962); Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Invenchek, 130 Ga.App. 798, 204 S.E.2d 457 (1974); Warner v. Southwestern ......
-
Professional Answering Serv. V. Chesapeake Tel.
...instructive, particularly since it is consistent with this court's view of the requirements of the statutory regime, Bird v. C & P Tel. Co., supra note 12, 185 A.2d at 918, and the PSC procedure at the time, previously described by this court in C & P Tel. Co. v. PSC, supra, 378 A.2d at 109......
-
Warner v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.
...Tel. & Tel. Co. (D.C.Or.), 184, F.Supp. 571; Russell v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. (D.C.Tex.), 130 F.Supp. 130; Bird v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. (D.C.Mun.App.), 185 A.2d 917. Esteve, supra, involved the sending of a cablegram, and thus was based on different facts, but it is often cite......
-
People's Counsel of D.C. v. Public Ser.
...stated or fixed" nor a "specific unit or standard," which it assertedly must be in order to pass muster under Bird v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 185 A.2d 917 (D.C.1962). Petitioner's reliance on Bird is misplaced. All that we held in Bird was that the Commission's decision to limit......