Kopka v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pa.
371 Pa. 444, 1952 Pa. LEXIS 436, 91 A.2d 232 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party who intentionally trespasses on another's land, or directs another to do so, is subject to strict liability for bodily harm sustained by the possessor of the land as a consequence of a condition created by the trespasser, irrespective of whether the trespasser's conduct was negligent.
Facts:
- The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania (Bell) planned a telephone line along a road bordering Walter V. Kopka's farm.
- Bell hired Jud Sedwick to erect the poles and indicated to Sedwick where to dig the necessary holes.
- Bell did not obtain a right-of-way or permission from Kopka to perform work on his property.
- On December 19, 1947, following Bell's instructions, Sedwick dug a hole 6.5 feet deep and 17 inches wide on Kopka's land to place an anchor rod.
- Two days later, on December 21, Kopka was informed of the hole and went to investigate in the late afternoon as it was getting dark.
- While searching for the hole in a weedy and overgrown area of his property, Kopka's leg slipped into it, causing him to sustain personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Walter V. Kopka sued the Bell Telephone Company (Bell) in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County for damages from trespass and negligence.
- Bell filed a preliminary objection to the court's jurisdiction over the claim for damages to the land, which was in Indiana County.
- The trial court, with Kopka's consent, struck the cause of action for damages to the land from the complaint, leaving only the personal injury claim.
- Bell brought the contractor, Jud Sedwick, onto the record as an additional defendant.
- At trial, the jury returned a verdict of $11,000 in favor of Kopka against Bell, but found in favor of the additional defendant, Sedwick.
- The trial court denied Bell's motions for judgment non obstante veredicto (n.o.v.) and for a new trial.
- Bell, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party who directs another to trespass on land, resulting in the creation of a dangerous condition, become liable for consequential personal injuries sustained by the possessor of the land due to that condition, regardless of whether the trespasser's conduct was negligent?
Opinions:
Majority - Stern, J.
Yes. A trespasser on land is liable for bodily harm caused to the possessor by a condition the trespasser created, irrespective of whether the trespasser’s conduct was negligent. The court's reasoning is that liability stems from the common law action of trespass quare clausum fregit, not negligence. One who directs another, even an independent contractor, to commit a trespass is also liable as a trespasser. The intent required is merely the intent to enter the land, making an innocent mistake about property rights irrelevant. A trespasser is liable not only for direct and proximate injuries but also for those that are indirect and consequential, such as the personal injuries Kopka sustained from falling into the hole created by the trespass. While a landowner's own negligence can break the chain of causation, the question of whether Kopka was contributorily negligent was a matter for the jury to decide.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Bell, J.
No. A defendant should not be held liable on a theory of absolute liability for trespass when the case was exclusively pleaded, tried, and argued by all parties on a theory of negligence. The court violates the established principle that an appellate court will not review a case on a theory different from the one presented in the trial court. Plaintiff's counsel repeatedly and explicitly stated the claim was based on negligence, not trespass quare clausum fregit. Furthermore, extending the ancient doctrine of absolute liability for trespass to land to include indirect and consequential personal injuries is an unwarranted expansion of Pennsylvania law, which has largely restricted liability without fault to injuries to the land itself.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Musmanno, J.
Yes. The author concurs with the majority's conclusion regarding the Bell Telephone Company's liability for the plaintiff's injuries. However, he dissents from the majority's decision to reduce the jury's damage award from $11,000 to $7,000. The trial court and jury, having observed the witnesses and heard the evidence firsthand, determined the award was appropriate, and the appellate court should not substitute its judgment by reducing the verdict when it does not shock the conscience of the court.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that the tort of trespass to land in Pennsylvania carries strict liability for resulting personal injuries, regardless of the trespasser's level of care. It expands the scope of damages for trespass beyond direct harm to the property to include consequential bodily harm to the possessor. The ruling establishes that directing an independent contractor to trespass imputes the same strict liability to the directing party. This precedent heightens the risk for entities like utility companies, making them absolutely liable for unforeseen personal injuries arising from even an innocent or mistaken trespass.
