Legal Opinion
McCarn v. Pacific Bell Directory
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 31, 1992No. A053984PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LOW, J. *
In this case we uphold the validity of a limitation of liability provision in a contract for telephone directory classified advertising, rejecting the claim that it violates the public policy against releases for negligence in contracts involving the public interest. We affirm a dismissal ordered after summary judgment was granted against plaintiffs Cynthia and Michael McCarn 1 and in favor of defendant Pacific Bell Directory (Directory).
The McCams operate a plumbing business which agreed to advertise in the Directory’s “yellow pages” for Sonoma County North and Sonoma County…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Leal v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World ChristianityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Tunkl v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Appalachian Insurance v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1989
- Hulsey v. Elsinore Parachute CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Dollar-A-Day Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. v. Pacific Telephone & Telegragh Co.California Court of Appeal · 1972
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
- Vodopest v. MacGregorWashington Supreme Court · 1996
- Rooz v. KimmelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- R-1 Associates, Inc. v. Goldberg-Zoino & Associates, Inc.Massachusetts Superior Court · 1995
- Vodopest v. MacGregorWashington Supreme Court · 1996