Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Dale v. Sierra Pac. Power Co
C019135 (Cal. Ct. App. June 28, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 44923
Description
Disabled Consumer Whose Application for Electric Service Was Denied Suffered No Damages from Utilities Shutoff
Abstract
The California Court of Appeal has affirmed the lower court’s
dismissal of plaintiff consumer’s challenge to defendant
utility company’s refusal of electric service to her.
Plaintiff, an insulin-dependent diabetic who receives disability
benefits and lives in a rented a condominium, needs refrigeration,
and hence electricity, to store her medications. Plaintiff and her
landlord arranged to have the electrical service to
plaintiff’s apartment terminated so that plaintiff could
initiate service as a customer in her own name. However, defendant
refused because plaintiff had not paid off a default judgment
entered against her for electrical service at a previous apartment.
Plaintiff claimed that defendant breached its duty not to terminate
service on a showing of medical necessity and that its actions
constituted negligence per se. Finding that defendant breached its
statutory duty not to terminate medically necessary electric
service, the lower court granted plaintiff’s pretrial motion
for partial summary judgment but subsequently ruled against
plaintiff on all counts. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the lower
court erred in issuing a judgment inconsistent with its pretrial
ruling in her favor. The appellate court saw no inconsistency in
the trial court’s finding that, although defendant was liable
to plaintiff for terminating service to her unit, plaintiff had
suffered no damages. Moreover, the finding of no actual damages
barred plaintiff’s negligence claim.
