Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Torts Keyed to Epstein

View this case in different Casebooks

Torts Keyed to Prosser

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

Defendant was hired by the city to lay pipe for a water main. The pipes were built out of materials, which were sound and in good order. One of the most severe storms created frost on the stopper, which caused the water to force its way around the neck of the main, and on the ground into Plaintiff’s house. The judge left it to the jury to consider whether Defendant had used proper care to prevent the accident to Plaintiff’s house. The jury found a verdict for Plaintiff. Defendant appealed.

Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*

Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.

*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue

The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.
Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - The Blyth ruling established that liability for negligence requires a failure to meet the standard of care under ordinary conditions, not extraordinary ones. If a U.S. appellate court were to apply Blyth in a lawsuit against a state government for failing to prepare for a once-in-a-millennium flood, which outcome would be most consistent with Blyth’s logic?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The state government is not liable because a flood of such severity is not an ordinary event, and the standard of care does not require anticipating unprecedented natural disasters.

Incorrect. Incorrect—While Blyth limits liability for extraordinary events, it does not excuse failure to plan for predictable, extreme risks.

(B) The state government is liable because infrastructure must be designed for all possible contingencies, and failing to prepare for extreme events is per se negligence.

Correct! Under Blyth, negligence depends on what a reasonable person should have foreseen. Some courts may extend this reasoning to require infrastructure to withstand extreme contingencies, even if rare, imposing liability.

(C) The state government is liable if there was scientific evidence available before the flood suggesting an increasing risk, making the event reasonably foreseeable despite its rarity.

Incorrect. Incorrect—While foreseeability is important, mere scientific evidence does not automatically impose liability.

(D) The state government is not liable because government entities are subject to sovereign immunity, which bars claims against them for failure to prevent natural disasters.

Incorrect. Incorrect—Sovereign immunity is a separate legal defense and does not alter the Blyth negligence standard.

Q.2 - The principle in Blyth that liability depends on foreseeable risk rather than mere causation creates tension with probabilistic risk assessment models used in modern environmental law and climate litigation. What is the most precise doctrinal conflict between Blyth and probabilistic risk analysis?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Blyth rejects statistical models for predicting low-probability, high-impact risks, whereas environmental law often imposes liability based on such models.

Incorrect. Incorrect—Blyth does not reject statistical models outright but rather focuses on case-specific foreseeability.

(B) Blyth holds that liability requires direct causation, while environmental risk assessments focus on aggregate contributions to harm, even where causation is diffuse.

Incorrect. Incorrect—While Blyth requires causation, environmental law does not always impose liability based solely on indirect contributions.

(C) Blyth is irrelevant to probabilistic models, as it concerns individual negligence, while risk assessment applies to regulatory frameworks, not private tort liability.

Correct! Blyth concerns individual tort liability, whereas probabilistic risk analysis is primarily used in regulatory decision-making. These doctrines do not overlap directly in application.

(D) Blyth limits negligence to foreseeable harms under ordinary circumstances, whereas environmental law increasingly recognizes liability for failing to anticipate emerging scientific risks.

Incorrect. Incorrect—Environmental law expands foreseeability, but Blyth does not inherently conflict with this trend.

Q.3 - How does Blyth's objective standard of negligence contrast with the Hand Formula (B < PL) in modern law and economics?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Blyth rejects the Hand Formula’s cost-benefit analysis by emphasizing an absolute standard of reasonable care, rather than a balancing of burdens and risks.

Incorrect. Incorrect—Blyth does not reject the Hand Formula outright; it simply does not incorporate it.

(B) Blyth and the Hand Formula are fully compatible, as both focus on the foreseeability of risk, though they differ in how they weigh economic efficiency.

Incorrect. Incorrect—The Hand Formula explicitly considers costs, while Blyth only considers

(C) Blyth establishes a negligence standard independent of economic efficiency, whereas the Hand Formula explicitly integrates cost-benefit reasoning into liability determinations.

Incorrect. Incorrect—Blyth is not an economic efficiency doctrine, but it does not contradict it outright.

(D) Blyth presumes that reasonable precautions are always economically justified, contradicting the Hand Formula’s assumption that not all precautions are worth taking.

Correct! The Hand Formula considers economic feasibility, whereas Blyth presumes reasonable precautions should be taken without explicit cost-benefit balancing.

Topic Resources

^™ CaseCast

Melissa A. Hale

ProfessorMelissa A. Hale

CaseCast™ "What you need to know"

CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.

To continue listening to this CaseCast™ please Subscribe

Topic Video

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.

3m 43s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Status:

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.