Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781 concerns reasonableness in the law of negligence.

It is famous for its classic statement of what negligence is and the standard of care to be met. Facts The defendants, Birmingham Waterworks Company, were the water works for Birmingham and had been incorporated by statute for the purpose of supplying Birmingham with water. The statute provided 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 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. 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. Judgment In establishing the basis of the case, Baron Alderson, made what has become a famous definition 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. 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 reasonable person 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. Bramwell B delivered a dissenting judgment on the law, but reached the same result on the facts.

Brief Fact Summary. Defendants had installed water mains along the street with hydrants located at various points. One of the hydrants across from Plaintiffs house developed a leak as a result of exceedingly cold temperatures and caused water damage to the house. Plaintiff sued for negligence. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Negligence is the failure to do something a person of ordinary prudence would do or the taking of an action that a person of ordinary prudence would not take. A mere accident that is not occasioned by the failure to take such an action or the taking of such an action does not qualify as negligence. Facts. Plaintiff sued to recover for damages sustained when a water plug installed by the Defendants sprung a leak and doused the Plaintiffs house. The plug had been installed 25 years prior to the incident, which was caused by extraordinarily cold weather. Prior to the incident, there had been no problems with the plug. The jury was allowed to pass upon the question of the Defendants negligence and returned a verdict for Plaintiff. Issue. Was the jury properly allowed to consider whether Defendants were guilty of negligence? Held. No. Verdict was entered for Defendants. No evidence was entered showing any acts or failures to act on the part of Defendants such as could comprise negligence. The evidence showed that Defendants routinely took precautions against cold weather, and that only due to a particularly and unforeseeably cold winter did any damage occur. This was properly characterized as an accident, not as negligence. Discussion. The Court distills the essence of basic negligence. The mere fact that someone has been injured by another or anothers property does not mean negligence has occurred. Rather, one must act or fail to act in a way that someone of ordinary prudence would not act or fail to act. Otherwise, there is no fault and no liability.