Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks - brief

Case brief: template

Case name:	Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks
Court:	COURT OF EXCHEQUER
Citation; Date:	11 Exch. 78, 156 Eng. Rep. 1047 (1856)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Trial court:		Appeal court (for appeal cases only):
Plaintiff:	Blyth	Appellant:
Defendant:	Birmingham	Respondent:

Facts of the case:
The defendants were incorporated by statute 7 Geo. 4, c. cix. for the purpose of supplying Birmingham with water. By section 84 of their Act it was enacted, that 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 to the said street, and cause another key to be hung up in the watch-house in or near to the said street. By section 87, pipes were to be eighteen inches beneath the surface of the soil. By section 89, 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. On February 24, a large quantity of water, escaping from the neck of the main, forced its way through the ground into the plaintiff's house. The apparatus had been laid down 25 years, and had worked well during that time. The defendants' engineer stated, that the water might have forced its way through the brickwork round the neck of the main, and that the accident might have been caused by the frost, inasmuch as the expansion of the water would force up the plug out of the neck, and the stopper being encrusted with ice would not suffer the plug to ascend. One of the severest frosts on record set in on January 15, 1855, and continued until after the accident in question. An encrustation of ice and snow had gathered about the stopper, and in the street all round, and also for some inches between the stopper and the plug. The ice had been observed on the surface of the ground for a considerable time before the accident. A short time after the accident, the company's turncock removed the ice from the stopper, took out the plug, and replaced it. The judge left it to the jury to consider whether the company had used proper care to prevent the accident. He thought that, if the defendants had taken out the ice adhering to the plug, the accident would not have happened, and left it to the jury to say whether they ought to have removed the ice. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.

Remedy sought:	recover for damage sustained by him by reason of the negligence of the defendants in not keeping their water-pipes and the apparatus connected therewith in proper order.

Court opinion (including key issues and arguments):
Kennedy for the respondent. The company omitted to take sufficient precautions. The fire-plug is placed in the neck of the main. In ordinary cases the plug rises and lets the water out; but here there was an encrustation round the stopper, which prevented the escape of the water. This might have been easily removed... The accident cannot be considered as having been caused by the act of God. Alderson: 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 had provided against such frosts as experience would have led men, acting prudently, to provide against; and they are not guilty of negligence, because their precautions proved insufficient against the effects of the extreme severity of the frost of 1855, which penetrated to a greater depth than any which ordinarily occurs south of the polar regions. Such a state of circumstances constitutes a contingency against which no reasonable man can provide. The result was an accident, for which the defendants cannot be held liable... Martin: The defendants are not responsible, unless there was negligence on their part. To hold otherwise would be to make the company responsible as insurers. it would be monstrous to hold the defendants responsible because they did not foresee and prevent an accident, the cause of which was so obscure, that it was not discovered until many months after the accident had happened.

Disposition of case:
Verdict to be entered for the defendants.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE CASE