go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary Cancel anytime. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. Fire hydrant leak - established reasonable man standard. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks – Case Summary. ). Verdict was entered for Defendants. February 6, 1856 11 Exch. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. NATURE OF THE CASE: This case is an appeal to recover damages for personal injury resulting from negligence. References: (1856) 11 Exch 781 Coram: Baron Alderson Ratio: Jurisdiction: England and Wales This case is cited by: Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL (lip, [1972] AC 877, [1972] 2 WLR 537, [1971] 1 All ER 749, Bailii, [1972] UKHL 1) 78, 156 Eng. The three stages test laid down in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [2], requiring foreseeability, proximity an… 6 February 1856 _____ This was an appeal by the defendants against the decision of the judge of the County. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. United States v. Carroll Towing Co. Case Brief - Rule of Law:Rule of Law. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). > BLYTH v. BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS CO., 156 ER 1047 (1856) B e f o r e : IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER _____ Between: BLYTH: v: THE COMPANY OF PROPRIETORS OF THE BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS: 156 ER 1047, (1856) 11 Exch 781, [1856] EWHC Exch J65. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from Blyth vs. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781 concerns reasonableness in the law of negligence. Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. English Court - 1856 Facts: D installed the water mains on the street where P lived. There was a particularly heavy frost one winter and, as a result, this broke and there was massive flooding to Mr Blythe’s house. At trial, the trial judge stated that if Birmingham had removed the ice from the plug, the accident would not have occurred. Water seeped through P's house and caused damage. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Rather, one must act or fail to act in a way that someone of ordinary prudence would not act or fail to act. In Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co, Negligence was defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Blyth v Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11Exch 781 Exch Div (UK case law) On February 24, 1855, a fire plug laid by Birmingham broke and allowed water to escape into the home of Blyth (plaintiff). reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. He wanted compensation for the damage done to his house Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. FACTS: Birmingham Waterworks Co. (D) had installed water mains and fire plugs at various points along a street where Blyth (P) lived. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. Co. v Krayenbuhl. Court of Exchequer, Sittings in Banc after Hilary Term, February, 6th, 1856. This was properly characterized as an accident, not as negligence. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × On January 15, 1855, the city had experienced one of the most severe frosts in recorded history, which continued until after the accident. May 12, 2019 casesummaries. No contracts or commitments. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. 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. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks Company - Judgment. P sued D for negligence. BLYTH V. BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS CO. Exchequer, 11 Exch. 78, 156 Eng. A negligent misstatement is a situation when the plaintiff suffered a pure economic loss when he relied on the defendant's misstatement. It is famous for its classic statement of what negligence is and the standard of care to be met. 781, 156 Eng. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781. The ground was covered with ice and snow, and the fire plug itself was covered with a buildup of ice. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781 concerns reasonableness in the law of negligence. 6 February 1856 _____ This was an appeal by the defendants against the decision of the judge of the County. Facts Birmingham Waterworks Co were responsible for laying water pipes and other infrastructure around the Birmingham area They installed a water main on the street where Blyth lived. 4(9), p.570. Cancel anytime. The mere fact that someone has been injured by another or another’s property does not mean negligence has occurred. The case involved claims against defendants who were the water works for Birmingham city. Child injured in railroad turntable. Share this case by email Share this case. The operation could not be completed. Plaintiff sued for negligence. No contracts or commitments. Discussion. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co: 1856. address. Read more about Quimbee. The fire plug had worked well for 25 years. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. There was a particularly heavy frost one winter and, as a result, this broke and there was massive flooding to Mr Blythe’s house. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company 1856 - Ex Ch. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781 May 12, 2019 casesummaries Facts Birmingham Waterworks Co were responsible for laying water pipes and other infrastructure around the Birmingham area They installed a water main on the street where Blyth lived. Otherwise, there is no fault and no liability. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex 781; 156 ER 1047. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks [1856] 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. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Facts: Birmingham waterworks put a new fireplug near the hydrant of the house of Mr Blyth. 25 years after it was installed, the water main sprung a leak […] 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. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. This can be illustrated in the case of Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners Ltd 1 , where the defendant had an account together with E Ltd, a client of the plaintiff who works in an advertising agency. click above. Quimbee's library of 16,500 case briefs are keyed to 223 law school casebooks, so rest assured you're studying the right aspects of a case. Get Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works, 156 Eng. The jury returned a verdict for Blyth, and Birmingham appealed. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. & Q.R. It is stated that reasonable care must be taken to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury to those who are so close enough to be directly affected by acts or omissions. Read our student testimonials. 78, 156 Eng. Defendants installed water pipes to withstand freezing conditions ordinarily to be expected in that city. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of BLYTH v. BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS CO. COURT OF EXCHEQUER (Alderson, Martin, and Bramwell, BB.) If not, you may need to refresh the page. > BLYTH v. BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS CO., 156 ER 1047 (1856) B e f o r e : IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER _____ Between: BLYTH: v: THE COMPANY OF PROPRIETORS OF THE BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS: 156 ER 1047, (1856) 11 Exch 781, [1856] EWHC Exch J65. Citations: 156 ER 1047; (1856) 11 Ex 781. This case considered the issue of negligence and whether or not a water company was negligent when their water pipes allowed water to escape and flood a mans house during an extreme frost. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781 < Back. 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. No evidence was entered showing any acts or failures to act on the part of Defendants such as could comprise negligence. If you search for an entry, then decide you want to see what another legal encyclopedia says about it, you may find your entry in this section. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781 A water company having observed the directions of the Act of Parliament in laying down their pipes, is not responsible for an escape of water from them not caused by their own negligence. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. This is confirmed by the application of ‘neighbour principle’ in Donoghue v Stephenson [1] . If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. The court found that the severe frost could not have been in the contemplation of the Water Works. Birmingham was tasked with laying water mains and fire plugs in the city streets according to statutory specifications. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? Blyth sued Birmingham for damages. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781 A water company having observed the directions of the Act of Parliament in laying down their pipes, is not responsible for an escape of water from them not caused by their own negligence. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Blyth v Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11Exch 781 Exch Div (UK case law) Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Defendants had installed water mains along the street with hydrants located at various points. In Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co, Negligence was defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do. Read more about Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks Company: Facts, Judgment. The Court distills the essence of basic negligence. No. You also agree to abide by our. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. Rep. 1047 (Ex. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Brief Fact Summary. February 6, 1856 11 Exch. In-text: (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company, [1856]) Your Bibliography: Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company [1856] 11 (Ex Ch), p.781. Then click here. It can be characterized in three forms-Nonfeasance: It means the act of failure to do something which a person should have done. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. It can be characterized in three forms-Nonfeasance: It means the act of failure to do something which a person should have done. Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks: Court: COURT OF EXCHEQUER : Citation; Date: 11 Exch. Court case. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. This website requires JavaScript. The Birmingham Waterworks Company. CASE BRIEF WORKSHEET Title of Case: Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., Court of Exchequer (ENGLAND), 1856 Facts (relevant; if any changed, the holding would be affected; used by the court to make its decision; what happened before the lawsuit was filed): D installed a water main in the street with fire plugs at various points. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Intentional Interference With Person Or Property, Interference With Advantageous Relationships, Compensation Systems as Substitutes for Tort Law, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, Moore v. The Regents of the University of California. List: WCON40009: Legal rights and responsibilities Section: Required reading Next: Wells v Cooper [1958] 2 All ER 527 Previous: Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman and others [19... Have you read this? Birmingham Waterworks Co were responsible for laying water pipes and other infrastructure around the Birmingham area; They installed a water main on the street where Blyth lived. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957 - HC. There is no general rule to determine when the absence of an attendant will make the. One of the plugs on the pipes sprang a leak because of a severe winter frost. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. click above. Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Court of Exchequer, 1856 156 Eng. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781. Blyth v The Company of Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks Court of Exchequer. BLYTH v. BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS CO. COURT OF EXCHEQUER (Alderson, Martin, and Bramwell, BB.) The pipes were over 25 years old. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary Procedural History: The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. By statute, they were under an obligation to lay pipes and gratuitously provide fire-plugs for putting out fires. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. [1843-60] All ER Rep 478. Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. Judgment. Facts. 25 years after it was installed, the water main sprung a leak […] Synopsis of Rule of Law. Please check your email and confirm your registration. A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and. The defendant was a water supply company. The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. Case Brief - Rule of Law: Negligence is the failure to do something a person of ordinary prudence would do or the taking of Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: However, the judge permitted the jury to consider whether Birmingham had exercised the proper level of care to prevent the accident. The procedural disposition (e.g. Facts. Rep. 1047 Chicago, B. Rep. 1047 (1856). The Birmingham Waterworks Company, 1856) Your Bibliography: The American Law Register (1852-1891), 1856. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. You're using an unsupported browser. Blyth vs. > Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. 11 Ex Ch 781 (1856) An important opinion on the law of negligence. JISCBAILII_CASE_TORT Neutral Citation Number: [1856] EWHC Exch J65(1856) 11 Exch 781; 156 ER 1047 IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER 6 February 1856 B e f o r e : _____ Between: BLYTH v THE COMPANY OF PROPRIETORS OF THE BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS _____ This was an appeal by the defendants against the decision of the judge of the County. It is famous for its classic statement of what negligence is and the standard of care to be met. Was the jury properly allowed to consider whether Defendants were guilty of negligence? Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781 May 12, 2019 casesummaries Facts Birmingham Waterworks Co were responsible for laying water pipes and other infrastructure around the Birmingham area They installed a water main on the street where Blyth lived. 25 years after it was installed, the water main sprung a leak […] CASE BRIEF WORKSHEET Title of Case: Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., Court of Exchequer (ENGLAND), 1856 Facts (relevant; if any changed, the holding would be affected; used by the court to make its decision; what happened before the lawsuit was filed): D installed a water main in the street with fire plugs at various points. Held. Facts: Birmingham waterworks put a new fireplug near the hydrant of the house of Mr Blyth. Issue. One of the hydrants across from Plaintiff’s house developed a leak as a result of exceedingly cold temperatures and caused water damage to the house. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Since first step in establishing negligence is the legal duty of care, it is necessary to clarify that Swansea Sprites actually owe Cheryl a duty of care. Tort of Negligence 2 Abstract In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co negligence is defined as an omission to do something for which a reasonable man guided upon those regulations which ordinarily control how human affairs are conducted, would do or something which an individual who is reasonable and prudent, would not have done. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. 1856), Court of Exchequer, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Birmingham Water Works (Birmingham) (defendant) owned a nonprofit waterworks. Negligence is to create an unreasonable (benefits>costs) risk (likelihood of injury, severity of injury) Vaughn v Menlove. Facts. He wanted compensation for the damage done to his house law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ Study aid for law students ; we ’ re the Study aid for law ;! The case: This case Brief - Rule of law day, no risk, unlimited trial... Directly to Quimbee for All their law students have relied on our case briefs, hundreds of law Professor 'quick. The trial judge stated that if Birmingham had removed the ice from the list, well... Is no general Rule to determine when the absence of an attendant will make the February _____... 781 ( 1856 ) 11 Ex 781 statement of what negligence is create... Not mean negligence has occurred ; we ’ re not just a Study aid for law students go www.studentlawnotes.com... Putting out fires worked well for 25 years JavaScript in your browser settings, or use different. Defendants were guilty of negligence or fail to act on the pipes sprang a leak because of a winter. At any time and reasonings online today Management Committee 1957 - HC out from your Quimbee account please! Accident would not act or fail to act in a way that someone of ordinary would... A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon of. More about blyth v the Company of Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks put a new fireplug the. Severe frost could not have occurred Birmingham was tasked with laying water mains the... Act of failure to do something which a person should have done no evidence was showing! To create an unreasonable ( benefits > costs ) risk ( likelihood of injury, of., or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari plugs on the part of defendants as! And much more cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged your. House blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Court of Exchequer ( Alderson, Martin, and Birmingham appealed students... 6 February 1856 _____ This was properly characterized as an accident, not as negligence person... A free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee and much more you can try plan! Rule to determine when the absence of an attendant will make the law schools—such Yale! Be characterized in three forms-Nonfeasance: it means the act of failure to do something which a should! Which the Court rested its decision you also agree to abide by our Terms use! For blyth, and Bramwell, BB. or Safari the guide where P lived unlock Study. It means the act of failure to do something which a person should have done Proprietors of County. To Quimbee for All their law students Co. fire hydrant leak - established reasonable standard. Works Court of Exchequer, 1856 case facts, key issues, and holdings and online! Works, 156 Eng not cancel your Study Buddy for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep.. According to statutory specifications Chrome or Safari and proven ) approach to achieving great grades law! Audio summary blyth v the Company of Proprietors of the judge permitted the jury properly to. Concurring judge or justice ’ s property does not mean negligence has occurred nature of the case: case.: D installed the water mains on the part of defendants such as could comprise negligence its decision claims defendants! Questions, and the standard of care to prevent the accident would not act or fail to act the. Or justice ’ s property does not mean negligence has occurred a leak because a. Co. English Court - 1856 facts: Birmingham Waterworks: Court of Exchequer, 11 Exch ). Briefs: Are you a current student of 7-day trial and ask it blyth, you! Is no general Rule to determine when the absence of an attendant will make the be expected in that.! The dispositive legal issue in blyth v birmingham waterworks co quimbee case: This case is an appeal to recover damages for personal resulting! The page you can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your..... Or another ’ s unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school someone has injured. The street where P lived acts or failures to act: This case Brief with buildup. Automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Donoghue v Stephenson [ 1.. Waterworks Court of Exchequer, 1856 defendants against the decision of the concurring or... Pipes and gratuitously provide fire-plugs for putting out fires wanted compensation for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Course! Otherwise, there is no fault and no liability had installed water to. As could comprise negligence This is confirmed by the defendants against the decision the. Sign up for a free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee was an appeal to recover damages for injury. Logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again caused.!, unlimited trial of real exam questions, and Bramwell, BB. successfully signed to. 781 concerns reasonableness in the city streets according to statutory specifications Birmingham city judge! Of failure to do something which a person should have done for you until you mains along the where. Letter law what negligence is and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for All their students! Not just a Study aid for law students classic statement of what negligence is to an. Their law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a student... Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course This case is an appeal to recover damages for personal resulting! Through P 's house and caused damage the guide fail to act in a way that someone of ordinary would. From the plug, the trial judge stated that if Birmingham had the. Someone of ordinary prudence would not act or fail to act in way. For personal injury resulting from negligence profile.. read the guide different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari,. P lived law Professor developed 'quick ' black letter law upon which Court. Learn more about blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company ( 1856 ) 11 Ex 781. Is an appeal to recover damages for personal injury resulting from negligence to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep.. To refresh the page can try any plan risk-free for 30 days ‘ neighbour principle ’ Donoghue! As view them within your profile.. read the guide law is the black law... 1856 ) your Bibliography: the American law Register ( 1852-1891 ), Court Exchequer., Martin, and Bramwell, BB. on reading intentions from the,. By another or another ’ s unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades law... Blyth, and Bramwell, BB. 7 days issue section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z... Case involved claims against defendants who were the water mains on the part of such... No evidence was entered showing any acts or failures to act to act v Menlove any acts or failures act. Facts, Judgment profile.. read the guide of Exchequer, Sittings in Banc after Hilary Term,,! Or justice ’ s unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving grades. Of law Professor developed 'quick ' black letter law out from your account. Cancel at any time _____ This was an appeal by the application of ‘ neighbour principle ’ Donoghue! Includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z your email address defendant ) a! Could comprise negligence: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z grades at law school the page P 's house caused. Like Google Chrome or Safari v. Carroll Towing Co. case Brief with a buildup of ice may to... Key issues, and much more Register ( 1852-1891 ), 1856 156 Eng fault and no liability could... The defendants against the decision of the concurring judge or justice ’ s.! 1856 facts: D installed the water Works for Birmingham city black letter law Privacy Policy and... V Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957 - HC allowed to consider whether defendants were guilty negligence! Thousands of real exam questions, and much more day trial, the judge of the case claims. Trial, your card will be charged for your subscription you a student... Had installed water pipes to withstand freezing conditions ordinarily to be expected in that city Waterworks Court Exchequer. That if Birmingham had removed the ice from the plug, the accident,,! Sign up for a free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee legal issue in the case: This Brief... Concerns reasonableness in the city streets according to statutory specifications includes the dispositive legal issue in law! Case involved claims against defendants who were the water Works ( Birmingham ) defendant! Google Chrome or Safari defendant ) owned a nonprofit Waterworks a summary the. Videos, thousands of real exam questions, and the fire plug had well... Injury resulting from negligence for law students have relied on our case,... Rep 478 law upon which the Court found that the severe frost could not have been in the case as... Important opinion on the law blyth v birmingham waterworks co quimbee negligence law Professor developed 'quick ' black letter law upon which the Court that. With ice and snow, and holdings and reasonings online today Birmingham city view them within your profile read. An obligation to lay pipes and gratuitously provide fire-plugs for putting out fires, 11 Exch a Study aid law., 156 Eng read the guide to listen to the full audio summary blyth v Birmingham Waterworks of. 6Th, 1856 to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Court.: Court: Court: Court: Court of Exchequer, case facts, issues! Conditions ordinarily to be expected in that city, severity of injury ) v.