NegligenceReasonable personCourt of Exchequer (England)

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.

(1856) 11 Exchequer 78118561 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The defendant water company had installed a water main fitted with a fire plug, constructed according to the best standards known at the time. An extraordinarily severe frost, of unprecedented severity, caused the plug to fail, resulting in water damage to the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff sued in negligence.
Issue
What standard governs whether a defendant's conduct constitutes negligence.
Held
The court formulated negligence as the omission to do something a reasonable person, guided by ordinary considerations governing human conduct, would do, or doing something a prudent, reasonable person would not do. Since the defendant's works were constructed to the best known standards, and the frost's severity was unprecedented and not reasonably foreseeable, no negligence was established.
Principle
Negligence is the omission to do something a reasonable person would do, or doing something a prudent, reasonable person would not do.

Facts

  • The defendant water company had installed a water main fitted with a fire plug, constructed according to the best standards known at the time. An extraordinarily severe frost, of unprecedented severity, caused the plug to fail, resulting in water damage to the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff sued in negligence.

Issue

  1. What standard governs whether a defendant's conduct constitutes negligence.

Held

  • The court formulated negligence as the omission to do something a reasonable person, guided by ordinary considerations governing human conduct, would do, or doing something a prudent, reasonable person would not do. Since the defendant's works were constructed to the best known standards, and the frost's severity was unprecedented and not reasonably foreseeable, no negligence was established.

Ratio decidendi

Negligence is assessed against an objective standard: what a reasonable, prudent person would or would not do in the circumstances. A defendant meeting this standard is not negligent merely because an extraordinary, unforeseeable event causes harm.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Key line: "In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856), the court formulated the foundational objective negligence standard: what a reasonable person would or would not do in the circumstances."
  • Use as the opening definitional authority before introducing the more specific Bolton v Stone risk-utility balancing and Bolam professional standard.

Cite this

Citation

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856) 11 Exchequer 781

Reported: (1856) 11 Ex 781. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.