Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: dgc@math.ucla.edu (David G. Cantor)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois!
Message-ID: <13903@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 21 Oct 90 15:14:38 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 20
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 754, Message 7 of 8


Apparently the telco expects to be completely reimbursed for business
lost due to the damaged cable.  However, most telco tariffs (written
by telcos, of course) provide that if the telco fails to provide
service (regardless of cause, even gross neglicence) the most that the
telco is liable for is the charge for the service.  Perhaps the Court
should take this into account when it assesses damages against the
contractor who damaged the cable.


David G. Cantor
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles
Internet:  dgc@math.ucla.edu


[Moderator's Note: I think that will be considered in the case at
hand. There have already been so many suits filed in the matter both
against the contractor and telco that I suspect they will wind up
being consolidated and heard at one time.   PAT]