Court Opinion

ID: 9661996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:56:41.568958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:35.705773
License: Public Domain

SHANNON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.
The heart of the telephone company’s appeal is its contention that its liability to appellee in this cause is limited by the terms of the tariff it filed with the Public Utility Commission. A copy of the tariff *651was not made a part of the record of the trial on the merits. The telephone company filed no statement of facts. Without a copy of the tariff properly in the record for this Court’s examination, this Court cannot dispose of the appeal on its merits.
The majority solves the telephone company’s problem by judicially noticing the fact that the company filed a tariff with the Commission, and, further, by judicially noticing the contents of that tariff. In so doing, the majority abrogates the rule of law followed in Texas for at least eighty-four years, Thompson v. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co., 11 Tex.Civ.App. 145, 32 S.W. 427 (1895, no writ), and the rule specifically followed by this Court. Byrd v. Trevino-Bermea, 366 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.Civ.App.1963, no writ).
In support of its holding, the majority points to the fact that the federal courts take judicial notice of tariffs in cases of this character and further that the courts of this state take judicial notice of federal rules and regulations.1 There is a very good reason for the courts to take notice of federal rules and regulations. The reason is that Congress has specifically provided that “The contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed . . . ” (Emphasis added). 44 U.S.C.A. § 1507 (1969).
There is no similar requirement in the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-13a et seq. (Supp.1978). If the legislature had intended to change the long-standing rule, it could have done so in the Act. If the legislature wishes to abrogate that rule in the future, it may do so. In the meantime, the office of the courts is to adhere to the clearly defined law.
Because there was no statement of facts filed and because no tariff appears properly of record, this Court may not examine the telephone company’s contention that its liability is limited by the provisions of the tariff.

. The Supreme Court has written that the statement that the courts of Texas are required to take judicial notice of administrative rules and regulations adopted by all federal departments, boards, and commissions pursuant to statute is “overbroad.” Tippett v. Hart, 501 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. 1973).