Blyth v The Company of Proprietors of The Birmingham Waterworks [1856] EWHC Exch J65 (06 February 1856)

A water main, installed by the defendants, burst during an unprecedentedly severe frost, damaging the claimant's house. The court found the water company was not negligent as they could not have reasonably foreseen such an extreme event, establishing the 'reasonable person' standard.

Facts

The defendants, a waterworks company, installed a fire-plug in a street in Birmingham in accordance with the requirements of its Act of Parliament. The fire-plug had worked correctly and without issue for twenty-five years. However, during the winter of 1855, an exceptionally severe and unprecedented frost occurred. This frost penetrated the ground to a greater depth than previously recorded, causing the plug to be affected and a large quantity of water to escape from the main. This water then flooded the claimant’s house, causing damage. The claimant brought an action against the waterworks company for negligence.

Issues

The central legal issue was whether the defendants were liable for negligence. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the defendants had a duty to take precautions against the effects of such an extreme and unforeseeable frost, and whether their failure to do so constituted a breach of that duty.

Judgment

The Court of Exchequer held that the defendants were not negligent. The judgment is famous for establishing the classic definition of negligence, articulated by Alderson B.

The ‘Reasonable Person’ Standard

Baron Alderson provided the canonical definition of negligence, which has become a cornerstone of tort law:

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.

Applying this standard, the court reasoned that the defendants were not required to guard against events that a reasonable person could not foresee. The frost of 1855 was so extreme and outside of normal experience that it was not a contingency that a ‘reasonable man’ would have anticipated. The defendants had followed standard practice and regulations, and there was no evidence that they had been careless or imprudent in the ordinary course of their operations.

Reasoning of the Court

Chief Baron Pollock noted that the evidence showed the company had done everything that could be reasonably expected of them and that the damage arose from a frost of a severity ‘more intense than any which had been known for a very long period’.

Baron Bramwell distinguished between the cause of the accident and the question of negligence. He stated that it would be ‘monstrous’ to hold the defendants responsible for an event they could not reasonably be expected to foresee. He eloquently argued:

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 to expect.

The court concluded that because the severe frost was an extraordinary event, the defendants’ failure to take extra precautions was not a failure to exercise reasonable care. Therefore, there was no evidence of negligence to be left to the jury, and the rule for a new trial was made absolute.

Implications

The decision in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks is a landmark case in the law of negligence. Its primary importance lies in its clear articulation of the ‘reasonable person’ test as the objective standard for determining a breach of duty of care. The case establishes that liability for negligence is not absolute; it is based on a failure to guard against foreseeable risks, not against all possible harm. It underscores the principle that one is not expected to be clairvoyant, but rather to act with the foresight and prudence of an ordinary, reasonable individual under the circumstances.

Verdict: The rule was made absolute. The verdict was for the defendants, The Company of Proprietors of The Birmingham Waterworks, as they were found not to have been negligent.

Source: Blyth v The Company of Proprietors of The Birmingham Waterworks [1856] EWHC Exch J65 (06 February 1856)