Knowledge (XXG)

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

Source 📝

105:
to the said street, and cause another key to be hung up in the watch-house in or near to the said street. By sect. 87, pipes were to be eighteen inches beneath the surface of the soil. By the 89th section, the mains were at all times to be kept charged with water. The defendants derived no profit from the maintenance of the plugs distinct from the general profits of the whole business, but such maintenance was one of the conditions under which they were permitted to exercise the privileges given by the Act. The main-pipe opposite the house of the plaintiff was more than eighteen inches below the surface. The fire-plug was constructed according to the best known system, and the materials of it were at the time of the accident sound and in good order.
104:
the company should, upon the laying down of any main-pipe or other pipe in any street, fix, at the time of laying down such pipe, a proper and sufficient fire-plug in each such street, and should deliver the key or keys of such fire-plug to the persons having the care of the engine-house in or near
126:
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if,
109:
The defendant had installed a fireplug into the hydrant near Mr Blyth's house. That winter, during a severe frost, the plug failed causing a flood and damage to Mr Blyth's house. Blyth sued the Waterworks for negligence.
135:
would do in the circumstances. Birmingham had not seen such cold in such a long time, and it would be unreasonable for the Water Works to anticipate such a rare occurrence.
131:
The court found that the severe frost could not have been in the contemplation of the Water Works. They could only have been negligent if they had failed to do what a
127:
unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done.
176: 258: 186: 253: 243: 138:
B. Martin offered a concurring opinion, stating that "hold otherwise would be to make the company responsible as insurers."
248: 238: 100:. They had been incorporated by statute for the purpose of supplying Birmingham with water. The statute provided that: 89: 233: 119: 93: 80:. It is famous for its classic statement of what negligence is and the standard of care to be met. 182: 132: 218: 202: 161: 53: 145:
delivered a dissenting judgment on the law, but reached the same result on the facts.
227: 142: 97: 77: 203:"BLYTH v. THE COMPANY OF PROPRIETORS OF THE BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS" 162:"BLYTH v. THE COMPANY OF PROPRIETORS OF THE BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS" 122:, made what has become a famous definition of negligence: 76:(1856) 11 Ex Ch 781 concerns reasonableness in the law of 59: 49: 41: 33: 25: 20: 124: 65:Negligence, nuisance, reasonable foreseeability 8: 178:Examples and Explanations for the Tort Laws 17: 153: 118:In establishing the basis of the case, 175:Glannon, Joseph W. (30 January 2015). 73:Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company 21:Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company 7: 14: 219:Full text of decision from Bailii 259:Court of Exchequer Chamber cases 45:(1856) 11 Ex Ch 781, 156 ER 1047 1: 90:Birmingham Waterworks Company 275: 64: 254:English nuisance cases 129: 107: 244:English tort case law 102: 54:Full text of judgment 249:Baron Bramwell cases 239:1856 in British law 133:reasonable person 69: 68: 266: 234:1856 in case law 207: 206: 199: 193: 192: 172: 166: 165: 158: 18: 274: 273: 269: 268: 267: 265: 264: 263: 224: 223: 215: 210: 201: 200: 196: 189: 174: 173: 169: 160: 159: 155: 151: 116: 101: 86: 37:6 February 1856 29:Exchequer Court 12: 11: 5: 272: 270: 262: 261: 256: 251: 246: 241: 236: 226: 225: 222: 221: 214: 213:External links 211: 209: 208: 194: 187: 167: 152: 150: 147: 120:Baron Alderson 115: 112: 87: 85: 82: 67: 66: 62: 61: 57: 56: 51: 47: 46: 43: 39: 38: 35: 31: 30: 27: 23: 22: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 271: 260: 257: 255: 252: 250: 247: 245: 242: 240: 237: 235: 232: 231: 229: 220: 217: 216: 212: 204: 198: 195: 190: 188:9781454860631 184: 180: 179: 171: 168: 163: 157: 154: 148: 146: 144: 139: 136: 134: 128: 123: 121: 113: 111: 106: 99: 95: 91: 83: 81: 79: 75: 74: 63: 58: 55: 52: 48: 44: 40: 36: 32: 28: 24: 19: 16: 197: 177: 170: 156: 140: 137: 130: 125: 117: 108: 103: 88:defendants, 72: 71: 70: 15: 94:water works 92:, were the 228:Categories 149:References 98:Birmingham 78:negligence 50:Transcript 143:Bramwell 114:Judgment 60:Keywords 42:Citation 34:Decided 185:  84:Facts 26:Court 183:ISBN 96:for 141:B. 230:: 181:. 205:. 191:. 164:.

Index

Full text of judgment
negligence
Birmingham Waterworks Company
water works
Birmingham
Baron Alderson
reasonable person
Bramwell
"BLYTH v. THE COMPANY OF PROPRIETORS OF THE BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS"
Examples and Explanations for the Tort Laws
ISBN
9781454860631
"BLYTH v. THE COMPANY OF PROPRIETORS OF THE BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS"
Full text of decision from Bailii
Categories
1856 in case law
1856 in British law
English tort case law
Baron Bramwell cases
English nuisance cases
Court of Exchequer Chamber cases

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.