Pinal County v. Cooper (CA1 10/20/15)

We’re not going to do a full review of this for one or more reasons set forth in our FAQ. And because behind the scenes it comes too close to being a political case, which perhaps helps explain the reasoning and the result. The court grants immunity to a government official by distinguishing between “actual” and “subjective” malice on the one hand and “objective malice” on the other. Why the court relegates an important part of the analysis to a footnote is unclear. The bottom line is that if lawyers have thought up adequate excuses for a bureaucrat’s actions, and perhaps if they haven’t,  then his actual motivation and intention are beside the point. Also that calling another person “crazy” is now mere hyperbole and cannot support a defamation action, though another unclear thing is whether that’s a matter of law or an appellate-court finding of fact.

We suggest, though, that the court wipe all metadata from its pdf files before posting them. We all know how these things really get done but appearances are important.

(link to opinion)

A Note to our Readers

As of U.S. Airways v. Qwest on Friday the Arizona Appellate Blog now has an even 400 case blogs in its archives. They include our analyses of all the opinions we have deemed “interesting” since November 2008 (except for the handful of cases we have had to note but not comment on for one or more reasons set forth in our FAQ). We mention this to brag a bit about our longevity and also to remind you that all those blogs are available using the search bar should you need a quick take on a case. Thanks very much for continuing to follow us.

Posted in Uncategorized

U.S. Airways v. Qwest (CA1 11/1/15)

This case is of value primarily for its discussion of tariffs, which routinely take plaintiffs’ counsel unaware (though presumably not here since airlines also file them). But at the end it also broadly interperts the Blue Stake law.

U.S. Airways’ operations were knocked out for a few hours when a nearby construction project cut a cable. Underground lines had been mismarked because Qwest’s maps were wrong. U.S. Airways sued Qwest, among others. Qwest won summary judgment because its tariffs limit liability for negligence. U.S. Airways appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirms. The opinion reviews the substantial body of law upholding tariffs that limit liability for negligence. U.S. Airways argued that the tariff didn’t apply to it because it wasn’t Qwest’s customer (the cable cut disrupted its AT&T service). The court cites various cases holding that tariffs apply to the public generally, not just to customers.

U.S. Airways also argued that the tariff (or, more specifically, the state’s approval of the tariff) unconstitutionally abrogates its cause of action. But it couldn’t cite authority that negligence against a utility for economic loss existed at common law. And even if it had, the tariff merely limits Qwests’ liability (although to an amount that is basically de minimis).

Qwest cross-appealed the trial court’s finding that it owed a duty to U.S. Airways under the Blue Stake statute (40-360.22). The statutes provide for liability to “underground facility operators and excavators.” But the court decides that since the statute creates a “duty or obligation” – to mark its lines and to do so “carefully” —  “the legislation was enacted, in part, to protect end users like US Airways.”

(The case also involved the issue of whether the contractor who marked the location of the underground cables for Qwest owed a duty to U.S. Airways. The court affirms that it did not but the reasons are fact-specific; the opinion restates existing law.)

(link to opinion)