Tort Law

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.

(1856) 11 Exch. 781; 156 Eng. Rep. 1047

Facts

• Birmingham Waterworks Company installed water mains and fire plugs in the streets of Birmingham.
• The installation complied with the ordinary engineering practice and statutory requirements of the time.
• One fire plug was situated near Blyth’s house.
• During an exceptionally severe winter, frost penetrated the ground to an extraordinary depth.
• The extreme cold damaged the fire plug or the equipment surrounding it.
• Water escaped from the system.
• The water entered Blyth’s house and caused property damage.
• Blyth sued the waterworks company in negligence.
• He argued that the company should have installed the plug at a greater depth or taken additional precautions against freezing.
• The company maintained that the winter conditions were unprecedented.
• It argued that no reasonable water supplier could have anticipated frost penetrating to the depth involved.
• The jury initially found for Blyth.
• The company challenged the verdict.

• Whether Birmingham Waterworks failed to exercise reasonable care.
• Whether the company had to guard against an exceptionally severe and unprecedented frost.
• Whether the occurrence of damage itself proved negligence.
• What general definition should be given to negligent conduct.

• Alderson B gave the classic definition of negligence:
• Negligence is either:
o failing to do something that a reasonable person, guided by considerations ordinarily regulating human affairs, would do; or
o doing something that a prudent and reasonable person would not do.
• Reasonable care requires precautions against risks that are reasonably foreseeable.
• The defendant is not required to guard against every event that is scientifically or physically possible.
• Conduct is judged prospectively according to:
o knowledge available before the accident;
o ordinary experience;
o the probability of harm; and
o the practicality of precautions.
• Compliance with accepted practice is relevant, although it may not always be conclusive.
• Damage does not automatically establish breach.

• The waterworks company installed the plug in the ordinary and accepted manner.
• Previous winters had not caused comparable failure.
• The frost penetrated significantly deeper than experience reasonably indicated.
• A reasonable water supplier would not have anticipated such exceptional conditions.
• Requiring all water systems to be designed against every unprecedented weather event would impose a burden disproportionate to the known risk.
• There was no evidence that:
o the plug was defectively manufactured;
o the company ignored an earlier fault;
o comparable plugs had failed previously;
o the company had received warnings; or
o the system departed from accepted construction standards.
• The fact that water escaped and damaged Blyth’s property demonstrated loss but did not independently prove want of reasonable care.
• The proper question was what precautions a reasonable company should have taken before the extreme frost occurred.
• Viewed from that time, rather than through hindsight after the accident, the existing arrangements were reasonable.
• The company could not be expected to predict or prevent an event outside ordinary climatic experience.

• The Court of Exchequer set aside the verdict for Blyth and entered judgment for the waterworks company.
• The company was not negligent because the frost was so extraordinary that a reasonable person would not have anticipated it.
• The installation followed ordinary practice and had previously functioned properly.
• The decision supplied the classic reasonable-person definition of negligence.