Hall v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.

California Court of Appeal

Hall v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.

20 Cal. App. 3d 953, 98 Cal. Rptr. 128, 1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1238

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 15, 1971

DocketCiv. 29182

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 20 Cal. App. 3d 953 (Hall v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 20 Cal. App. 3d 953, 98 Cal. Rptr. 128, 1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1238 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Appellant Roland K. Hall seeks damages from respondent Pacific Telephone Company because of alleged negligence and breach of contract in deleting appellant’s professional listing in the classified telephone directory. The appeal is from a judgment of dismissal after a general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.

Because the case was disposed of on demurrer, it must be taken as true, as the complaint alleges, that respondent improperly deleted appellant’s professional listing from the yellow pages of the telephone directory.

Appellant contends that limitation of a telephone company’s liability, by tariff, is unlawful. He concedes, however, that the issue has been resolved to the contrary by an earlier decision by a Court of Appeal. (Cole v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 416, 419 [246 P.2d 686].) He requests that we overrule Cole; the Supreme Court having denied a hearing in that case (id. at p. 420), we are not inclined to comply with the request. Moreover, in Davidian v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 750 [94 Cal.Rptr. 337], another appellate court has recently held contrary to appellant’s contention. Another very recent decision, Product Research Associates v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 651 [94 Cal.Rptr. 216] (pet. hg. den.) is in principle inconsistent with the Cole and Davidian holdings. But Product Research did involve a *955 failure to provide service rather than, as in our case and Davidian, an erroneous deletion from a classified directory. We prefer to avoid creating a direct conflict in decisions where erroneous deletions from the directory are involved.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

THE COURT.

Appellant Roland K. Hall seeks damages from respondent Pacific Telephone Company because of alleged negligence and breach of contract in deleting appellant’s professional listing in the classified telephone directory. The appeal is from a judgment of dismissal after a general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.

Because the case was disposed of on demurrer, it must be taken as true, as the complaint alleges, that respondent improperly deleted appellant’s professional listing from the yellow pages of the telephone directory.

Appellant contends that limitation of a telephone company’s liability, by tariff, is unlawful. He concedes, however, that the issue has been resolved to the contrary by an earlier decision by a Court of Appeal. (Cole v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 416, 419 [246 P.2d 686].) He requests that we overrule Cole; the Supreme Court having denied a hearing in that case (id. at p. 420), we are not inclined to comply with the request. Moreover, in Davidian v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 750 [94 Cal.Rptr. 337], another appellate court has recently held contrary to appellant’s contention. Another very recent decision, Product Research Associates v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 651 [94 Cal.Rptr. 216] (pet. hg. den.) is in principle inconsistent with the Cole and Davidian holdings. But Product Research did involve a *955 failure to provide service rather than, as in our case and Davidian, an erroneous deletion from a classified directory. We prefer to avoid creating a direct conflict in decisions where erroneous deletions from the directory are involved.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Cal. App. 3d 953, 98 Cal. Rptr. 128, 1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-pacific-telephone-telegraph-co-calctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack