Court Opinion

ID: 9771979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:03:55.13597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:40.742483
License: Public Domain

MASSEY, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I am of the opinion that the majority have fallen into the error of finding equity *211in a law case and deciding upon a disposition under equitable principles. They have held that by reason of the fact that there was the undoubted right of the City to order termination of the electric power at the place where such service was terminated, and by reason of the fact that the place of termination was that where the City desired the service terminated, there was justifiable and non-negligent termination at such place by its electrical department despite the fact that the electrical department was never directed or ordered to terminate power, or after such termination to decline to restore such, at the particular place. The trial court held to the contrary, and awarded damages as a consequence predicated upon the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the City utility department in shutting off the power at the place in question without determining necessity of so doing, and without orders from the City in its governmental capacity, etc.
Having originally drawn the case according to this court’s-custom of rotation I prepared an opinion affirming the judgment of the trial court on condition of a remittitur. I adhere to the opinion that the damages allowed below were excessive, but that some damages, were proved. My comments, however, will be confined to the matter of the City’s liability for damages.
Confusion may be readily resolved if the City is thought of as the sovereign in respect to its police power and is thought of as the ordinary utility company in connection with its operation of an electric utility. If this be done we have for consideration a case where the utility company, without direction from the sovereign, terminated plaintiffs’ service at the wrong place as the result of negligent mistake. That the termination of service was at the place where the sovereign desired such to occur is in my opinion wholly immaterial. In the record there is total absence of any proof that the sovereign ever communicated its “desire” to the utility company, as well as like absence of proof that the sovereign ever “ordered” the utility company’s action. The same thing applies to the failure of the utility company to restore service, upon plaintiffs’ request, at the place where the service had been earlier terminated without any order from the sovereign.
For these reasons I respectfully register my dissent.