Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co was a legal case that was decided in the Court of Exchequer in 1856. The case involved a dispute between the Birmingham Waterworks Company and the town of Blyth, which was located near the company's reservoirs.
At the time, the Birmingham Waterworks Company was responsible for supplying water to the town of Blyth. However, the company had recently constructed a new reservoir, which was located on land that was owned by the town. The town argued that the company had no right to use the land for the reservoir, and that the construction of the reservoir had caused damage to the town's property.
The case went to trial, and the Court of Exchequer ultimately ruled in favor of the Birmingham Waterworks Company. The court held that the company had the right to use the land for the reservoir, as it was necessary for the company to carry out its duties of supplying water to the town. The court also ruled that the town was not entitled to any compensation for the damages caused by the construction of the reservoir.
This decision was significant because it established the principle that private companies have the right to use land for necessary purposes, even if it causes some inconvenience or damage to the owner of the land. This principle is still applied in modern property law, and it has been used to justify a wide range of activities, such as the construction of pipelines, roads, and other infrastructure projects.
Overall, the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co was an important legal precedent that has had a lasting impact on property law and the rights of private companies. It established the principle that private companies have the right to use land for necessary purposes, as long as it is in the public interest.
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks webapi.bu.edu
The defendants were not bound to keep the plugs clear. To hold otherwise would be to make the company responsible as insurers. HIS LORDSHIP said that the two families were on friendly terms and on occasion the defendant would accompany Mr Williams and his family to the swimming pool. The hitting of a ball out of the ground is an incident in the game and, indeed, one which the batsman would wish to bring about; but in order that the act may be negligent there must not only be a reasonable possibility of its happening but also of injury being caused. Gray should be on watch first. The plaintiff, Mr Roy Webster Williams, aged 49, a quantity surveyor, of Ashtead, Surrey, was awarded £13,352 damages for personal injuries and costs against the defendant, Stephen Humphrey, also of Ashtead.
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
By the 89th section, the mains were at all times to be kept charged with water. Gray owed him a general duty to exercise reasonable care as regards his safety and that a fisherman going out on deck alone was vulnerable; 4 there was a duty on each employer of a fisherman on an inshore trawler to apply his mind to the safety of such a fisherman and not simply to follow convention and practice without further thought; so far as the use of the single chamber inflatable lifejacket was concerned, this the defendant did not do; the danger of falling overboard and drowning in the case of a fisherman such as Mr. Therefore, there could be no assault. They could only have been negligent if they had failed to do what a B. He went into the wheelhouse and discovered that Mr. An incrustation of ice and snow had gathered about the stopper, and in the street all round, and also for some inches between the stopper and the plug.
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781
They had been incorporated by statute for the purpose of supplying Birmingham with water. On appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: Held, that it was misleading to talk of the burden of proof shifting to the defendant in a res ipsa loquitur situation because the burden of proving negligence rested throughout the case on the plaintiff p 300L ; that in an appropriate case the plaintiff established a prima facie case by relying upon the fact of the accident and if the defendant adduced no evidence there was nothing to rebut the inference of negligence and the plaintiff would have proved his case, but if the defendant did adduce evidence that evidence had to be evaluated to see if it was still reasonable to draw the inference of negligence from the mere fact of the accident p 301D ; that the judge had mislead himself by assuming that there was a legal burden on the defendants to disprove negligence and he had also failed to give effect to those authorities which established that a defendant placed in a position of peril and emergency had not to be judged by too critical a standard when he acted on the spur of the moment to avoid an accident p 302D ; that in attempting to extricate himself, his coach and his passengers from a situation which appeared to him as one of extreme danger, the first defendant had acted with the alertness, skill and judgment which could reasonably have been expected in the circumstances, and that, accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed p 302 H-J. Therefore, an important element in establishing trespass is that the defendant must be proven to have acted intentionally 2. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed. The result was an accident, for which the defendants cannot be held liable.
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Court of Exchequer, 1856 11 Exch. Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp 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. Bird was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go. His motive was irrelevant when considering the consequences of those acts, for the test was objective. On the facts, N had failed to ensure that the standard sequence of engagement was used, evidenced by the large number of collapsed scrums occurring during the game which, in the light of expert evidence, meant N's refereeing had fallen below an acceptable standard. Suddenly the coach crossed the central reservation and collided with a public light bus travelling in the inner lane of the eastbound carriageway. Alan Gray brought an action for damages the principal issue being whether Progress should have been furnished with a single chamber inflatable lifejacket by Mr.
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co explained
Gray on the importance of wearing it whenever he went on deck alone. Gray on watch alone but who was expected at times to go on deck , was small but sufficient for a prudent employer to conclude that notwithstanding existing practice on other trawlers an instruction to wear a lifejacket such as a single chamber inflatable lifejacket would minimize if not wholly eliminate the risk of such an accident; 5 if, as appeared to be the case, there was a general practice of not having and wearing lifejackets of any type on small trawlers when on deck such practice was unsafe; the defendant failed to exercise the duty of reasonable care in respect of the safety of Mr. Lord Bingham of Cornhill, C. 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. Gray should have been instructed to wear one of these lifejackets as opposed to the single chamber inflatable lifejacket; 3 it was accepted that Mr. As Mr Williams walked by the edge of the pool, at the shallow end where the water was only 3ft deep, the defendant pushed Mr Williams into the water, intending no harm but only to cause a big splash. The track was oval in shape and measured two miles or more in circumference.
Tort Law Negligence Breach Cases
In his Lordship's view, a simple allegation that the defendant pushed the plaintiff into the pool was in essence an allegation of a trespass to the person, and it added nothing to that allegation to include the word "intentionally". The system of fishing involved Progress proceeding on automatic pilot at about three knots over the ground, turning to starboard gently in manual steering and then on reaching the return leg and settling on the new course, proceeding again on automatic pilot. The defendant had installed a fireplug into the hydrant near Mr Blyth's house. The defendant had installed a fireplug into the hydrant near Mr Blyth's house. No accident like this had ever happened before. This involved him being in the wheelhouse. Issue Whether the defendants acted negligently when installing the water mains and fire plugs.
