Shinzel v. Bell Telephone Co.

Citations

• 31 Pa. Super. 221
• 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 195

Syllabus

<p>Telephone company — Damages to landowner — Municipal use — Eminent domain.</p> <p>The erection of telephone poles and wires in city and borough streets, under charter rights, with municipal consent, and in conformity to municipal regulations, is not in itself an additional burden for which the owner of the fee is entitled to compensation. It follows from this, that unsightliness of the poles, and noises which are the ordinary incident of the lawful and non-negligent maintenance of the poles and wires and the conduct of the business, do not constitute a special injury for which damages are recoverable; but appreciable interference with light, air, access or drainage is an additional burden to which the land of the abutting owner cannot be subjected without rendering to him just compensation.</p> <p>In an action against a telephone company by a landowner claiming to recover injury to his drainage by reason of the erection of a telephone pole, the question of the alleged injury will not be submitted to the jury where the only evidence on the subject is, that water backed into the plaintiff’s cellar, and that the pole was erected within about eight inches of the drain, without anything to show a connection between the two conditions. An additional ground for such ruling is found where there is no evidence as to the specific amount of the loss caused by the injury to the drainage.</p> <p>Where a large telephone pole designated as distributing pole of a diameter of sixteen inches is planted opposite to kn alley, at a point distant from the house line between nine and ten feet, and it appears that by reason of the pole it was impossible to take long pieces of timber and lumber through the alley for the purpose of repairs and alterations, the owner is subjected to an injury that is not temporary, and for which he is entitled to damages.</p>