Beeks v. Dickinson Cnty.

• Decision Date: 11 July 1906
• Citation: 131 Iowa 244,108 N.W. 311
• Parties: BEEKS v. DICKINSON COUNTY ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

131 Iowa 244

108 N.W. 311

BEEKS

v.DICKINSON COUNTY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 11, 1906.

Appeal from District Court, Dickinson County; W. B. Quarton, Judge.

The plaintiff and his family were quarantined 30 days by the local board of health of one of the townships in Dickinson county because of a supposed case of smallpox in the family. There was in fact no contagious disease in the family, and the plaintiff brings this suit to recover of the county, and of the individual members of the local board of health of the township, damages which he alleges he has suffered on account of the quarantine. A demurrer to the petition and its amendments was sustained, and a judgment rendered for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.J. W. Cory, for appellant.

Francis & Owen, for appellees.

SHERWIN, J.

It is the settled law of this state, as well as the general rule, that municipal corporations are not liable for the negligence of their officers or agents in executing health regulations adopted for the purpose of preventing the spread of contagious diseases. In so far as a municipality undertakes the duty of making and enforcing quarantine regulations and other laws for the promotion of the public health, it is performing governmental functions, and its officers are not agents for whose action or inaction it is liable unless such liability is imposed by its charter, or by the laws of the state under which it exists. McFadden v. Town of Jewell, 119 Iowa, 321, 93 N. W. 302. 60 L. R. A. 401, 97 Am. St. Rep. 321;Easterly v. Town of Irwin, 99 Iowa, 694, 68 N. W. 919;Ogg v. City of Lansing, 35 Iowa, 495, 14 Am. Rep. 499;Packard v. Voltz, 94 Iowa, 277, 62 N. W. 757, 58 Am. St. Rep. 396;Calwell v. City of Boone, 51 Iowa, 687, 2 N. W. 614, 33 Am. Rep. 154; 1 Tiedeman, State and Federal Control of Persons and Property, 122. Furthermore, it is probably true that the officers in question were not strictly municipal officers or agents so as to render the county liable for their acts in any event. They became health officers by virtue of the statute which fixed the tenure of office also. While such officers are elected in townships, they are elected in obedience to the statute, to perform a public service not peculiarly local or corporate, but as state officers with such powers and duties as the statute confers upon them. 2 Dillon's Municipal Corporations, §§ 974, 975, 977.

When quarantined, the plaintiff and his family lived on a farm in one township and rented and worked a farm in another, and he alleges in his petition that because of his detention he was unable to care for the crops on the farm so rented, and unable to procure others to do so; that he suffered a total loss of the crop thereon for which he seeks recovery. In addition to his claim that the county is liable generally for the alleged negligence of the local board of health, the appellant contends that at the time of the quarantine the local officers promised that the county would provide him the necessary help for taking care of his crops, and that because of such promise and further, because the statute makes the county liable in the first instance for the care of infected and quarantined persons, it is liable for the value of his crops. Section 2568 of the Code creates local boards of health, and makes it the duty of such boards to make such regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public health, and to proclaim and establish quarantine against all infections or contagious diseases dangerous to the public, and section 2570 of the Code provides for the care of infected persons and for the payment of the expenses incurred on account thereof. The statute neither expressly or by implication provides for anything more, and we are not at liberty to read into it an enlarged liability. It is also very clear that the members of the local board of health had no power to create a liability not imposed by law, even if they had acted under the direction of the board of supervisors. The liability that may be incurred by such boards is fixed by law and beyond this neither can go. See Dillon, supra.

The remaining question is whether the members of the local board of health are individually liable for the loss of the plaintiff's crops. The statute makes it the duty of health officers to quarantine against “all infectious or contagious diseases dangerous to the public” and it cannot well be questioned that the defendants were acting within the scope of their duty as such officers, and that in establishing the quarantine they were acting in a quasi judicial character. They were vested with the power to determine whether an infectious or contagious disease existed in the appellant's family, and if found to exist their duty under the statute required them to take the proper steps to prevent its spread,...