Court Opinion

ID: 9530297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:58:53.32931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:04.258382
License: Public Domain

Ringold, J.,
(concurring)—I join the court's opinion except for the discussion of the costs of a refund. The defendant's economic power to transfer the long range burden of a judgment to the class of plaintiffs should not shield the defendant from a present liability. I, nonetheless, concur in the result because the trial court's unchallenged findings of fact demonstrate that the class representatives did not prove damages.
Finding of fact No. 11 provides:
As it turned out, despite the differing billing cycles and differing usages of electricity during the six months surcharge period, by-monthly customers neither benefitted nor were damaged by being at the beginning or end of the surcharge billing period; both classes of customers averaged nearly the same surcharge billing.
*224This finding is a rejection of a claim that the increase had an inequitable impact on customers, but it also demonstrates that even those customers paying maximum retroactive surcharges suffered no appreciable harm. Finding of fact No. 21, quoted in the court's opinion read in light of finding of fact No. 11 is also a finding of no monetary harm.
These findings are unchallenged by assignment of error; I, therefore, concur because the class representatives failed to prove damages at trial.
Reconsideration denied June 27, 1980.
Review denied by Supreme Court November 7, 1980.