## Facts

- The defendant, Birmingham Waterworks Co, installed a fireplug near the plaintiff's property approximately twenty-five years prior to the incident, as part of water supply infrastructure.
- The fireplug design allowed removal for firefighting and included a waste pipe system.
- During exceptionally cold weather, frost caused the fireplug to freeze, leading to a build-up of pressure and water escaping from the main, damaging the plaintiff's house.
- The plaintiff brought legal proceedings for damages, alleging negligence in the design or maintenance of the fireplug.
- The issue for the court was whether the company was negligent, creating liability for the damage caused.

## Issues

1. Whether the water company’s actions in designing and maintaining the fireplug fell below the standard of care required by law.
2. Whether the circumstances leading to the damage were so unforeseeable that no reasonable person would have anticipated or guarded against them.
3. Whether the company’s conduct constituted negligence as measured by the actions of a “reasonable person.”

## Decision

- The court found in favour of the defendant water company and held that there was no negligence.
- The frost was characterized by the court as an “act of God,” constituting an unforeseeable and unusually severe circumstance.
- The company’s precautions and the twenty-five year history without incident were relevant to assessing the reasonableness of its conduct.
- The fireplug’s design was in line with common practice and not considered flawed.
- The court held that the standard of care was not breached, as the defendant acted as a reasonable company would under ordinary circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- The case defined negligence as “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 assessment of negligence is objective, based on the conduct of a hypothetical reasonable person, rather than the defendant’s subjective beliefs or abilities.
- The “reasonable person” standard requires reasonable, not exceptional, skill or foresight, and considers what an ordinary person would have foreseen as a risk.
- There must be a direct causal link between the alleged negligence and the resulting damage.
- The standard set in this case became a touchstone in negligence law, further applied in cases such as Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 and Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691.

## Conclusion

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co established the objective “reasonable person” standard for negligence, reaffirming that liability arises only when conduct falls below what could be expected of an ordinary, prudent person and emphasizing the necessity of foreseeability and reasonable precaution in determining breaches of duty of care. The case remains authoritative for defining “reasonable” care in negligence claims.


Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781