Opinion ID: 1282614
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: plaintiff's tort claims

Text: Atkin's claims for negligence and for intentional interference with economic relations were subject to the district court's jurisdiction. Public utilities have no wholesale immunity from the duties imposed by tort law generally. A utility's actions which give rise to tortious or contractual liability and which do not call in question the validity of orders of the PSC or trench upon its delegated powers are subject to the jurisdiction of the district court. See Garkane Power Association v. Public Service Commission, Utah, 681 P.2d 1196, 1207 (1984). Campbell v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 120 Ariz. 426, 586 P.2d 987 (Ariz. App. 1978), is on point. The plaintiff charged the defendant telephone company with invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and interference with telephone service. The court held that if the complaint raised issues concerned only with the manner and means of providing telephone service, the Arizona Corporation Commission (Arizona's public utilities commission) had primary jurisdiction over the matter. However, because the dominant issues raised sounded simply in tort and contract, the jurisdiction of the trial court was sustained. The Arizona court stated: This case ... does not involve the question of whether [the telephone company is] adequately providing telephone service to the public. Further, [the plaintiff] is not seeking injunctive relief to establish broad public doctrines, or rights to service or levels of service. Id., 586 P.2d at 993. Thus, the district court had jurisdiction to decide Atkin's claims that Mountain Bell had negligently listed Atkin's phone number in the yellow-page directory and had interfered with Atkin's prospective business relations by negligently installing, maintaining, or operating a malfunctioning intercept. The district court's adjudication of these claims does not interfere with the PSC's powers of regulation. Mountain Bell argues, however, that the trial court erred in not ruling that Mountain Bell's liability, if any, for negligently listing the Atkin phone number under both the Atkin and Allen firm names was subject to General Exchange Tariff, § 20(E)(3) (1977), which states: The Telephone Company's liability arising from errors in or omissions of directory listings shall be limited to and satisfied by a refund not exceeding the amount of the charges for such of the customer's service as is affected during the period covered by the directory in which the error or omission occurs. In Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Atkin, Wright & Miles, supra, 681 P.2d at 1263, we held that tariffs have the binding force of law. See also Shehi v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 382 F.2d 627, 629 n. 2 (10th Cir.1967); First Central Service Corp. v. Mountain Bell Telephone, 95 N.M. 509, 623 P.2d 1023, 1025 (N.M.App. 1981). Cf. Morris v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., Utah, 658 P.2d 1199 (1983). The limitation of the phone company's liability for a wrong listing is not without precedent. The high chance of inadvertent error because of the large number of listings and the possibility of large consequential damages has led a number of courts to sustain limits on a telephone company's liability for a wrong listing. E.g., Allen v. General Telephone Co. of Northwest Inc., 20 Wash. App. 144, 578 P.2d 1333, 1337 n. 3 (1978); Abraham v. New York Telephone Co., 85 Misc.2d 677, 380 N.Y.S.2d 969, 972 (1976). Limitations have been enforced unless the company's conduct is grossly negligent, willful, or wanton. See Pilot Industries v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 495 F. Supp. 356 (D.S.C. 1979); Allen v. General Telephone Co., 20 Wash. App. 144, 578 P.2d 1333, 1336 (1978). We are not asked to reexamine this law. Gross negligence is the failure to observe even slight care; it is carelessness or recklessness to a degree that shows utter indifference to the consequences that may result. Robinson Insurance and Real Estate, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 366 F. Supp. 307, 311 (W.D. Ark. 1973). Willful misconduct goes beyond gross negligence in that a defendant must be aware that his conduct will probably result in injury. Id. In Robinson, the plaintiff attempted to show a deficiency in the procedures that the telephone company used to publish the phone book. Even though the plaintiff showed that other errors were committed, the court ruled that the evidence of carelessness was insufficient to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct. Atkin produced no evidence that Mountain Bell failed to use proper care in preparing the phone book or that Mountain Bell purposely disregarded a known inaccuracy in the phone number listings. At trial, a Mountain Bell witness testified that the proofs of the yellow pages were read and were accurate. A single publication error, without further evidence, is not proof of gross negligence or willful misconduct in the publication of an erroneous number in the phone book.