Jim Whitney

Team 6

Case brief: template

Case name:	Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.
Court:	Court of Exchequer
Citation; Date:	11 Exch. 78, 156 Eng. Rep. 1047 (1856)
One-line description (12-point font):
Waterpipe damage due to severe frost & decision involving causation using foreseeability

Trial court:
Plaintiff:	Blyth
Defendant:	Birmingham Waterworks Co.

Facts of the case:

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 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.

Procedural history (remedy sought, prior history, grounds for appeal, etc., as available):

Prior History: 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.

Appeal by the defendants, the Birmingham Waterworks Co., from a decision of the judge of the Birmingham County Court in an action tried before a jury, and brought by the plaintiff to 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... It is the defendants' water, therefore they are bound to see that no injury is done to any one by it... A scientific man could have foreseen it. If no eye could have seen what was going on, the case might have been different; but the company's servants could have seen, and actually did see, the ice which had collected about the plug. It is of the last importance that these plugs, which are fire-plugs, should be kept by the company in working order. The accident cannot be considered as having been caused by the act of God.

ALDERSON, B.The case turns upon the question, whether the facts proved show that the defendants were guilty of negligence. 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, 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. A reasonable man would act with reference to the average circumstances of the temperature in ordinary years. 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...

BRAMWELL, B. However that may be, it appears to me that 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

This case deals with the third criterion of causation, which is foreseeability. In Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., the plaintiff claimed that the defendant should have been able to prevent the damage and thus exercise foreseeability. The defendant argued that they did what a reasonable person would have done and that they took all necessary precautions. The court agreed with this. The incentives of this decision are that for the defendant it means that they will be able to undertake projects like laying down waterpipes that are assumed to yield a positive benefit and not be held liable for damages caused by obscure events, like the severest frost in years. This means that the defendant will take all necessary precautions to make sure that damages are avoided but if something occurs that is not foreseeable, the defendant will not be held liable because there really was not anything they could have done about it. Thus, one has to keep in mind that a reasonable person can only do so much.

This decision also has an impact on the plaintiff because even though they were not able to recover damages in this case, in the future if other parties act in a negligent way and do not take the necessary precautions a reasonable person would, they will be able to sue and receive compensation for the damages that occurred to their property.