Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kopka v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pa.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 24, 1952No. Appeal, 178Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Opinion Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part by

Mr. Justice Bell :

The majority concede that defendant Bell Telephone Company was not guilty of negligence, and that the plaintiff cannot recover on the theory of negligence which was the theory on which the case was actually and admittedly tried and passed upon in the Court below. Nevertheless, they sustain plaintiff’s verdict on an entirely different theory, viz., a theory of absolute liability arising out of a non-negligent trespass to land. *455In order to reach this startling conclusion, the majority utterly ignore a principle which this…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Railroad v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. Huffman Estate (No. 3)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  3. Federoff Et Ux. v. Harrison Const. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  4. Fisher v. BrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  5. Allen v. WillardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API