## Facts

- Birmingham Waterworks Company, a statutory corporation, supplied water through street mains and installed fire-plugs under its private Act.
- A water main and fire-plug opposite Blyth’s house met statutory specifications, including required depth, and had been built using then-best known methods.
- The equipment had operated without incident for about 25 years.
- During the winter of 1854–1855, an exceptionally severe and prolonged frost caused ice and snow to accumulate around the fire-plug stopper.
- Freezing water expanded and increased pressure in the main; the ice-encased stopper did not move freely, and water escaped through surrounding brickwork and clay.
- Escaping water traveled through the ground into Blyth’s house and flooded it on February 24, 1855.
- Blyth alleged negligence for failure to keep the pipes and apparatus in proper order and failure to remove snow and ice around the plug.

## Issues

1. Whether the water company breached its duty of reasonable care by failing to prevent water escape from the fire-plug during an unusually severe frost.
2. Whether reasonable care required anticipating and guarding against an extraordinary climatic event based on ordinary experience.
3. Whether the evidence of negligence was sufficient to submit to a jury or instead required judgment for the defendant as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Court of Exchequer reversed the plaintiff’s judgment and ordered a verdict entered for the defendant.
- The court held there was no evidence of negligence sufficient to go to the jury.
- Statutory compliance, sound construction, and long safe operation supported a finding of due care under ordinary conditions.
- The unprecedented frost was treated as an exceptional contingency that a reasonable person was not bound to anticipate or provide against.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence is the omission to do what a reasonable person would do, or doing what a prudent and reasonable person would not do, in circumstances that ordinarily regulate human affairs.
- The standard of care is judged by ordinary, average conditions; liability generally depends on foreseeable risks shown by experience.
- Failure to take precautions against a highly unusual and unexpected event does not constitute negligence when ordinary prudence would not anticipate that risk.
- A court may withdraw a negligence claim from the jury when, taking the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff, no reasonable finding of breach is legally supportable.

## Conclusion

The court found no breach of duty because the waterworks had used sound, compliant apparatus that functioned for decades, and the damage resulted from an extraordinary frost that ordinary prudence would not foresee; the plaintiff’s verdict was set aside and judgment entered for the defendant.


Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., 156 Eng. Rep. 1047 (Exch. 1856)