*1 850 jury done in the case, said or room.1 tled.
what was In the instant it is not as clear putting has effect of an end to This rule that Radcliffe’s readily counsel could as- jurors litigation post-trial from and shields certain from the face verdict that the disappointed parties. from harassment inadvertently had held each defendant However, permissible affidavits are to dem- individually $1,777.00. accountable for the actually agreed what verdict onstrate Apparently was brought this home to him Staats,2 jury, v. In Moulton upon. some time after the discharge jury, through oversight, failed to find a verdict when the court entered judgment. for defendants on their counterclaim. The Furthermore, nothing indicates that from eight struck the affidavits of trial court silence would defendant obtain any strate- jurors and denied motion to amend the gic advantage. sought relief is not a verdict. This reversed and Court stated: trial, new only but that relief which would rule, ‘The general statements of have objection been available had an been jurors will be received not to establish raised before the discharge of jury. misconduct, impeach their or to own their Consequently, the case should be remanded verdict, prevent reception not of with directions the trial court to receive really as to what and, the remaining they affidavits if so on, that, agreed prove verdict in order to warrant, to amend the verdict to conform otherwise, through mistake or not to the intentions of jury. expressed, been correctly agree- as jury, ment reached and not the verdict; filed, paper
written and a writing
showing that the incorrect impeachment
not an of the verdict itself jurors
. affidavits of admissi- verdict,
ble to show that the received record, by
and entered of reason of a mistake, embody does not the true find- ’ John C. JOSEPHSON and Geraldine C. . ing jury. . [Citations Josephson, wife, his Plaintiffs omitted.]3 Appellants, Here, too, the affidavits were filed in an clarify, impeach effort jury’s v. verdict and should not have been stricken. BELL, public utility, MOUNTAIN It is also the rule Utah that failure to Does, 5, through 1 Defendants verdict, object informal insufficient Respondents. face, its before the discharged, No. 14946. objection.4 constitutes a waiver of that However, it does not appear jury’s Supreme Court of Utah. patently verdict case was so insuffi- cient on face a waiver 24, has resulted. Feb. 1978. Langton, In failed to all consider
items damage contained in the court’s
instructions, awarding special damages yet
excluding amounts for wages lost and pain
and suffering.
which,
Amounts to
evidence,
plaintiff was obviously enti-
Broderick, Utah,
Stringham
er,
v.
732,
(1932);
CROCKETT, Justice: Plaintiffs, John Josephson, and Geraldine sued Mountain Bell for compensatory and punitive damages, claiming that the tele- at phone residence was wrongfully an unpaid phone disconnected because of Josephson’s Upon bill for Mr. business. trial to a court submitted the case under instructions that the had the proof burden of these two basic issues: (1) Did wrongfully the defendant termi- the telephone nate service to the so, plaintiffs? (2) injuries, if what any, plaintiffs thereby if did suffer if damages, any, plaintiffs what entitled to recover?
The instructions also included: you If plaintiffs find that have failed prove either one of these factual issues you should return a verdict in favor of the defendant of no cause of action. general returned a verdict of no of action.
cause appeal On contend that compels findings their favor on Whereas, the above-stated issues. justified argues ant that the verdict have refused to be- because the could (a) lieve that either disconnected, (b) and/or wrongfully damage. was the owner Josephson Plaintiff operated he a travel service which Service, and was dba, Travel Josephson’s Supply with Western Office involved also School, private, non- Institute and Travel an which he was offi- corporation of profit were main- for all business cer. offices Lake West 200 South Salt tained had its own tele- each business City where history delinquen- was a There phone. phones, business for these paying cies material here ex- which are not details of Josephson Travel Service cept Madsen, A. Cummings, Gordon Robert C. finally disconnected in had been phone appel- City, plaintiffs and Salt Lake unpaid June, leaving an balance of lants. 2,1975, Josephson Mr. September On $418. Latimer, L. his other two businesses to 714 Parsons, & Gordon had moved Behle Avenue, Schroeder, away two doors from Ninth his K. Salt Stephen Roberts residence, where service was respondents. availa- City, Lake defendants family. Although his to him and ble ation of ordinary business. But that plaintiff’s on the residence company, a public utility, high- has a August er paid, obligation in late defendants were to render service to Josephson ordinary if than does the delinquency advised business. This de- rives from the fact paid, given on the was not business *3 privilege having of monopoly rendering a phone would be residence disconnected. necessary public service. The reasons threat, Carrying that the out defendant this need no except say discussion here to the phone home company disconnected on that as one of the conditions to al- being 3, 1975, September precipitated which privilege lowed that it is that must render lawsuit. service all public to members of the who so question The is squarely thus request pay and for it.2 presented: where the had paid customer all It is be may to observed that a household charges phone, on his home current was the well include members who are in any rights its defendant within to disconnect way responsible involved for the busi- phone charges paid that because were not by family ness carried on one of the mem- separate phone. on the business bers in whose name the phone home is phone company Defendant bases de- listed. This applies particularly to the part upon fense in tariffs filed with the plaintiff Josephson Geraldine and also to Public Service Commission paragraph L-4 any other the family may members of who of which recites in substance: if a subscrib- reside in the family They home. are all er pay charges telephone does not public members the to whom account, company may to any bill it obliged ant is to make its service available other account of the subscriber. long so it paid as for. The not without other remedies to collect its Q-2 Paragraph states: charges against separate business enti- Company may, The after notification conducted plaintiff ties Josephson. subscriber, intent to the temporarily opinion But it is our that the defendant suspend or terminate service for non- permitted should not be pressure to use the due payment sum imposing penalty upon the home and respect tariffs, those With these family by denying them a pertinent. They observations are are filed they are entitled to paying and for. This by the mainly utilities themselves and thus analogy seems helpful: Suppose a man They serve their own interests. should be carrier, owes common such as a bus com- against strictly utility; construed and pany, a debt freight it has hauled for utility required to strictly should be him or his business. He wants to travel as them; comply fair, with they must be a passenger and offers cash for his fare. Second, reasonable and lawful.1 in this in The company refuses to sell him a ticket or shown, it stance is not and the defendant carry him because he a prior owes them claim, does not that it ever so billed the debt. In this refusal the carrier would vio- phone against plain business charges late its responsibility to the public carry did, however, tiff’s It phone. residence all who present themselves and give notice intent to discon required fortiori, A fare. a wife and/or nect the phone days home few prior enti-, other family members of the should be doing so. transportation. tied position com In accordance with what has been said pany may quite well oper- above, tenable in the we cannot see it as other than a Co., U.C.A.1953, 54-3-1; 1. Berner v. Interstate Power 244 Iowa 2. Sec. Berner v. Interstate (1953); etc., Co., supra; N.W.2d 55 AAA Inc. v. South Power 73 C.J.S. Public Utilities 7.§ Co., Okl., Telephone western Bell 6; 73 C.J.S. Public Utilities § C.J.S. Tel., Tel. & Radio and Television § rights bility to review and of their to correct what we deprivation service because perceive departure to be such an arrant their home cut off business separate justice. from reason Consequently, on the agree with therefore We delinquent.3 necessary the judgment were be reversed the disconnection contention plaintiffs’ and that this case be remanded wrongful. of their purpose determining such amount of damages may as plaintiffs have suffered argued by proposition second wrongful because disconnection of event, the defendant: telephone. plaintiffs (appel- Costs to finding justified in lants). indeed. damage paradoxical no that a postulate involve This would ELLETT, J„ J„ MAUGHAN, C. con- defend well without just as off person is cur. true, this be it. If with ant’s service *4 in advantage the customer to there is no HALL, (dissenting). Justice: service, must be question the having I respectfully dissent. charging its is asked, what the The a for, they paying jury are returned verdict of no cause of what and customers a suffi judgment action was entered de- company The defendant for? advertising the numer Mountain Plaintiffs job in fendant Bell. then good ciently desirability of its Judgment the filed a Motion notwithstand- advantages and ous it should need no in a ing the verdict or the alternative Mo- public the service to poten (Plaintiffs true of the The same is tion for a Directed Verdict. ac- assist here. exigencies, and in certain knowledge needs that this alternative motion was tial critical have the which trial). aspects actually a motion a new These want to may who upon those by effects were denied the trial court and similar motions family. plaintiff with communicate this followed. appeal sufficiently hardly as to obvious It important seems It is to the basis of understand are will- people that what justify comment assuming Even jury’s verdict. them, to value for has some ing to plaintiffs’ wrongfully ant disconnected measure, being without that, the same by plaintiffs had phone, home decided It service, damage. is some results compensable damage. no Certain- amazing that the de- only little short a telephone in having access to a one’s ly not position would here take inconvenient, fendant may be but home practi- plaintiffs’ home upon the evidence decided that based them, because particularly to cally valueless trial, not could re- presented slight inconvenience of only the they had showed that cover. The evidence telephone. away to use two doors going just two doors yet another did have counsel seems to that defendant’s The fact residence, clearly which was away from his certainly a persuaded have so anticipation notice and applied for after advoca- his skill and adroitness tribute disconnect, just day one and installed impelled to the conclusion we are cy. But actually was discon- before the test square up with the that this does showing wherein he The burden of nected. we it. justice as see fall necessarily upon harmed must has been failing carry that plaintiff, commitment to not ignore We do our loses his cause of action.1 burden of the trial prerogatives to the deference review, judicial principles Under basic appellate But in the jury. court and jury’s verdict un- Court, upset the responsi- we should not there a of this function Utah, Security Bank of N. A. v. First See and authorities A.L.R. annotation 3. See 95 Utah, Wright, Soter v. proposition supporting which therein cited Development Corp., view, citing 2d Utah Wasatch but also is the sounder we believe P.2d 663 cases contra. some or in unreasonable direct conflict less it is These are alternative remedies available I do not such a with the evidence.2 believe Telephone to the In the instant on showing appeal. been made has case, defendant try realized that to col- lect the by billing business debt the home Notwithstanding foregoing, I feel do account would be a useless points effort there- to address some of the compelled opted give (which fore majority opinion in the as to whether notice raised was done right deny public utility occasions) or not a on numerous and then to discon- service at one address because of failure to nect permitted service. I believe this is pay for service rendered at another past on the facts before the It court. should correctly The majority address. decision also noted that fact account split authority there a notes that was for business use and the other was for However, better issue. rule seems personal use is no consequence.5 public utility such a un- right to allow the clearly although shows that called arbitrary, unjust, inequi- less its actions account, his “business” the business was a table, legal right par- or without under the dba and the plaintiffs’ was for per- ticular circumstances.3 trend seems to use. sonal right be that there exists such of cut-off Finally, public policy argument sup- (1) when it founded either in a provision ports the judgment for defendant. There is the current service contract between legal says maxim which in effect that no parties; (2) governing generally statute one can benefit from his own wrongdoing. utilities; (3) a the conduct of rule *5 permit plaintiffs To damages recover regulation promulgated by company failing to pay their debts strange is a dis- itself, usually part its filed In tariff.4 justice. tortion of majority opinion case, filed properly suggests situation, company could tariffs which cover the as follows: also have collected the business ar- L-4 In event a subscriber is indebted rearages through ordinary judicial means. Telephone Company true; however, This normal charges at a collection and services rendered processes time, nature, money, cost which cost in turn prior or passed be or must service more than number those customers who location, subscriber properly pay and the their debts. There must be a satisfy or in- balancing effect innocent, insure that debtedness, Telephone Company upstanding customers are not harmed bill may charge such indebted- the selfish acts of another. against account ness of the sub- suggest This is not to every in- present scriber’s service or to a utility company justified stance would present account the subscriber’s discontinuing delinquent service to a cus- where than one number more tomer, but facts of this case I being or location is served. jury’s would affirm the verdict and the trial Q-2 may, Company after notifica- judgment. court’s subscriber, tem- tion intent porarily suspend terminate WILKINS, J., nonpayment
service for sum concurs in the views ex- [Emphasis pressed dissenting due the add- opinion HALL, J. ed]. Machinery Company Utility
2. Arnold
v. Intrusion Pre
Annot.:
Cut-off —Default
at another
Inc.,
246,
pakt
address,
11
(1976).
Utah 2d