Influenza and the laws of England concerning infectious diseases / by Richard Sisley.

  • Sisley, Richard.
Date:
1892
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Influenza and the laws of England concerning infectious diseases / by Richard Sisley. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    38/44 (page 34)
    Opinion. 1. (a.)—There is no doubt that at common law it is an indictable misdemeanour wilfully to expose in a public highway a person suffering from an infectious disorder. The only express modern authorities (R. v. Vantandillo, 4 M. & S. 73, R. v. Burnett, ib. 272, both in 1815) are on indictments against persons who carried about children suffering from small-pox. It would seem that the same principle would apply to any public place, and to a person wilfully exposing himself as well as any other person in his charge, and to any grave contagious disease. Evidently it would not apply to an ailment which, though strictly a contagious disorder, is not usually attended with grave consequences even if not specially treated, such as a common cold. The ground of the offence is endangering the health and lives of the rest of the subjects (Le Blanc J. in R. v. Vantandillo). (6.) Exposure of persons suffering from any dangerous infectious disorder is punishable under s. 126 of the Public Health Act, 1875. The Act does not define dangerous. The question is whether influenza comes within either the common law rule or the statutory description. On the whole, I think it must be within both or neither. What Mr. Justice Le Blanc called :t endanger- ing the health and lives of the rest of the subjects in 1815 seems to be as nearly as possible what the Legis- lature meant to express by the one word dangerous in 1875. If this be so, it is not necessary to consider