Marino v. South Central Bell Tel. Co.
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bonfiglio v. Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. (La. Ct. App. 1993)
- Hennessy v. South Central Bell Tel. Co. (La. Ct. App. 1980)
- W & T Offshore, Inc. v. Apache Corp. (District Court, S.D. Texas 2013)
- Isadore v. Interface Security Systems (La. Ct. App. 2011)
- Frederick Kirk D/B/A Exactax v. Interface Security System, LLC (La. Ct. App. 2011)
- Frisard v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1995)
- Soileau & Coreil v. Trans-Western Publishing (La. Ct. App. 1989)
- Louisiana Shoes v. SOUTH CENT. BELL TEL. (La. Ct. App. 1984)
- E.J. Willhite, D/B/A Willhite Air Conditioning v. South Central Bell Telephone Co. (5th Cir. 1982)
- Roll-Up Shutters, Inc. v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. (La. Ct. App. 1981)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Lawrence MARINO, d/b/a Marino's Florist
v.
SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Mac R. Trelles, Jr., Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant, Lawrence Marino.
Victor A. Sachse, III, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee, South Central Bell Tel. Co.
Before ELLIS, CHIASSON and PONDER, JJ.
PONDER, Judge.
Plaintiff appealed from a summary judgment dismissing this suit for damages based on breach of contract and on negligence.
We affirm.
Plaintiff contracted with defendant for the publication of yellow-pages advertising. *1312 The advertisement was omitted from the book; plaintiff claims he suffered a loss of business.
There was a clause in the contract limiting damages to the charges paid. Such a provision has been declared valid. Wilson v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 194 So.2d 739 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1967). The charges have been refunded; so summary judgment was proper as to a cause of action based on contract.
However, plaintiff also asserted negligence because of defendant's failure to include the ad in the book, to proof-read the pages, and to notify plaintiff of the omission.
However, we believe that these allegations are simply restatements of the breach of the contract. This, then, would be covered by the contractual provision limiting damages.[1]
We are not impressed with plaintiff's argument that the limitation provision should be invalidated because it was not called to his attention during the hurried signing of the contract. We have examined the contract signed by the parties and do not find it misleading in its containment on the front and back of the page, especially in view of its reference on the front immediately above plaintiff's signature to the "terms and conditions set forth on the reverse side hereof."
For these reasons we affirm the judgment at appellant's costs.
AFFIRMED.
NOTES
[1] We find Bunch v. South Central Bell Tel. Co., 356 So.2d 104 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1978) inapplicable because that case involved a contract that had been fulfilled plus negligence not arising from the contract.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.