## Facts

- A property owner sued a telephone utility, alleging negligent installation or maintenance of underground facilities caused damage to the owner’s property.
- The alleged harm involved subsurface or otherwise concealed conditions, making causation proof largely circumstantial.
- The utility challenged both causation/negligence proof and timeliness under the statute of limitations.
- The trial court removed the case from the jury based on insufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence and/or that the claim was time-barred.
- The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. Whether circumstantial evidence was legally sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to infer the utility’s negligence and causation, or whether it was too speculative as a matter of law.
2. Whether, for hidden or subsurface property damage, the statute of limitations runs from the defendant’s act or from when the injury and its cause were discovered or should have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the trial court’s disposition and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury.
- The court rejected a requirement that circumstantial proof must eliminate every other possible cause to avoid dismissal as a matter of law.
- The court held that, for concealed or subsurface injuries, limitations may begin when the injury is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, rather than at the time of the defendant’s conduct.

## Legal Principles

- In civil negligence cases, circumstantial evidence is sufficient if it supports a reasonable inference that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
- A plaintiff need not disprove all other possible causes; it is enough that the negligence/cause theory is reasonably inferable and more probable than competing explanations under a preponderance standard.
- When evidence could support competing reasonable inferences, factual choice among them is generally for the jury; removal from the jury is proper only when reasonable minds could not differ.
- For injuries arising from hidden or subsurface conditions, the statute of limitations may run from when the plaintiff knew or, through reasonable diligence, should have known of the injury and its cause (discovery rule).

## Conclusion

The court restored the case to the jury by liberalizing the sufficiency standard for circumstantial proof in negligence and by allowing concealed, subsurface property-damage claims to proceed when filed within the limitations period measured from discovery or reasonable discoverability of the injury and its cause.


Smith v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa., 397 Pa. 134, 153 A.2d 477 (Pa. 1959)