Smith v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
153 A.2d 477 (1959)
In 1948, Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania and its contractor (the companies) (defendants) laid underground telephone conduits near a house later bought by Smith (plaintiff). By 1951, adjacent sewer pipes were crushed and blocked, allowing sewage to seep into Smith's house. Smith sued the companies, alleging their telephone work wrecked the pipes and caused damage to his house. The trial judge imposed a compulsory nonsuit on the grounds that Smith's circumstantial evidence was insufficient to rule out any other possible cause for the damage. Smith appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (McBride, J.)
Concurrence (Bell, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 725,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 725,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.