Holman v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
Decision Date | 09 May 1973 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. KC-3085. |
Citation | 358 F. Supp. 727 |
Parties | Donald M. HOLMAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
David W. Carson and John H. Fields, of Carson, Mahoney & Fields, Kansas City, Kan., for plaintiffs.
Leonard O. Thomas and Ronald C. Newman, Weeks, Thomas, Lysaught, Bingham & Johnston, Kansas City, Kan., William C. Sullivan, T. Larry Barnes, Topeka, Kan., for defendant.
Plaintiffs, two corporations and their principal stockholder, have filed this action for the alleged breach of contract or, alternatively, negligence of defendant telephone company in providing adequate intrastate telephone service in Kansas and Missouri. The matter is now before the court on the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Defendant's main contention is that its liability herein is governed by tariffs filed with the Kansas Corporation Commission and the Missouri Public Service Commission. Plaintiffs do not dispute that said tariffs were on file at the time the alleged breach of contract or negligence occurred. The tariffs then in effect were substantially as follows:
Plaintiffs contend, on the other hand, that under Kansas law the defendant may not limit its liability in its intrastate business by filing an "unreasonable" tariff. In support of their contention, plaintiffs cite two telegraph company cases: McNally Pittsburg Mfg. Corp. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 186 Kan. 709, 353 P.2d 199 (1960), and Milling Co. v. Postal Telegraph Co., 101 Kan. 307, 166 P. 493 (1917). In the Milling Co. case, the Supreme Court of Kansas held:
"In conducting its intrastate business a telegraph company may make reasonable stipulations limiting its liability, but in the absence of positive or permissive statutes governing the subject, the reasonableness of any such stipulation is a question for judicial determination." (syl. 2)
The court relied upon previous cases where reasonable limitations of liability —for other than gross negligence—were upheld Russell v. Telegraph Co., 57 Kan. 230, 45 P. 598 (1896), while unreasonable limitations restricting liability to an insignificant sum where negligence was gross were disregarded Telegraph Co. v. Crall, 38 Kan. 679, 17 P. 309 (1888).1 The more recent McNally case is, in our view, just another application of the reasonableness rule.2 In other words, the particular limitation there involved did not have the force and effect of law because the court found that, under the circumstances of that case, it was unreasonable. Conversely, unless the tariff's limitation were found to be unreasonable, it would have the force and effect of law. Shehi v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 382 F.2d 627 (10th Cir. 1967); Ford v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., No. T-4540 (D.C.Kan.1971) unpublished. While the defendant asserts that primary jurisdiction is conferred upon the Corporation Commission to determine the reasonableness of such a limitation, the case law makes it clear—and there does not appear to be any statutory authority to the contrary—that the court is the final arbiter of the reasonableness of a limitation of liability. Milling Co. v. Postal Telegraph Co., supra; McNally Pittsburg Mfg. Corp. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., supra.
In Missouri, the law is substantially the same as in Kansas.
See also State ex rel. Mt. States T. & T. Co. v. District Court, 503 P.2d 526 (Mont.1972), and Wheeler Stuckey, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 279 F.Supp. 712 (D.C.Okl.1967).
So far as the court has been able to determine, the kind of tariff involved in this action, namely, one dealing with inadequate or interrupted service, has never been the subject of judicial scrutiny in either Kansas or Missouri. In at least two other states, however, virtually the same kind of tariff has been at issue. In Massachusetts, it was held:
Wilkinson v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 327 Mass. 132, 97 N.E.2d 413 (1951).
In California, the opposite result was reached in Product Research Associates v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company, 16 Cal.App.3d 651, 94 Cal.Rptr. 216 (1971), but we think that case is distinguishable because, unlike Kansas and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Behrend v. Bell Tel. Co.
...the interrelationship of the limitation with the rate structure or with the general scheme of regulation. Holman v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 358 F.Supp. 727 (D.Kan.1973). Tariff limitations have also been justified by reference to the mechanical nature of the telephone system, subje......
-
MOBILE ELECTRONIC SERV. v. FIRSTEL, INC
...Inc., 700 N.E.2d 1128 (Ind.1998); Woodburn v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 275 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 1979); Holman v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 358 F.Supp. 727 (D.Kan.1973); Louisville Bear Safety Serv., Inc. v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 571 S.W.2d 438 (Ky.App.1978); Wilson v. Southern Bell Te......
-
Professional Answering Serv. V. Chesapeake Tel.
...See also Pilot Indus. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., supra, note 10, 495 F.Supp. at 362-64 (cases cited); Holman v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., supra note 27, 358 F.Supp. 730; Wilkinson v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., supra, 327 Mass. at 133, 97 N.E.2d at 415; Valentine v. Michigan Bell ......
-
Pigman v. Ameritech Pub., Inc.
...68, 69 Ill.Dec. 183, 447 N.E.2d 400; Woodburn v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co. (1979), Iowa, 275 N.W.2d 403; Holman v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. (D.Kan.1973), 358 F.Supp. 727; Louisville Bear Safety Service, Inc. v. South Central Bell Tel. Co. (1978), Ky., 571 S.W.2d 438; Wilson v. Southern B......