Kirby v. Harker

• Decision Date: 02 July 1909
• Citation: 121 N.W. 1071,143 Iowa 478
• Parties: KIRBY v. HARKER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

143 Iowa 478

121 N.W. 1071

KIRBY

v.HARKER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 2, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, Greene County; F. M. Powers, Judge.

Suit to recover damages for false imprisonment. There was a directed verdict for the defendant, and, from a judgment thereon, the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.W. W. Turner and Gallaher & Graham, for appellant.

J. A. Henderson, for appellee.

SHERWIN, J.

The plaintiff was quarantined for smallpox in his own home from the 1st day of June until the 3d day of July, 1901. The defendant was at that time mayor of Grand Junction, and, by virtue of said office, the president of the local board of health. This suit is to recover damages for the restraint; the plaintiff alleging in his pleading that it was illegal and malicious.

The facts are substantially as follows: A rumor reached the defendant that the plaintiff was sick, and on the 30th or 31st of May he went to see him. After the call, the defendant immediately notified the health physician of Grand Junction, Dr. G. W. Kester, of the plaintiff's condition, and the latter visited the plaintiff and examined him in the afternoon of the 31st day of May, and at once reported to the defendant that the plaintiff was afflicted with smallpox. At about the same time the defendant telephoned to Dr. C. B. Adams, who was then a member of the state board of health, residing at Sac City, notifying him of the plaintiff's condition, and asking him to come and investigate the matter. Dr. Adams went to Grand Junction on the 1st of June, made an examination of the plaintiff, had a consultation about his case with Dr. Kester, and then reported to the defendant that the plaintiff had smallpox. The reports of the two doctors to the defendant were verbal only. While Dr. Adams was making his examination of the plaintiff, he told the plaintiff that he diagnosed his case as smallpox, and, in answer to the plaintiff's inquiry as to what was to be done, suggested to him that he remain in his drug store with the doors locked until evening, and then go to his home and submit to quarantine. After talking the matter over, the plaintiff agreed to follow the advice, and this conversation and agreement was reported to the defendant by Dr. Adams. Following the report of Dr. Adams, the defendant called together the local board of health, and at the session so called the entire matter was laid before the board. But in making such report it was also reported that the plaintiff had already been quarantined by the defendant, which, as we understand the present record, was not true. The board approved the quarantine so reported, and passed a resolution to the effect that the rules and regulations of the state board of health be carried out to the letter; that the chairman of the board quarantine all “directly” exposed persons, and place a guard over the quarantined persons if found necessary. After this action had been taken by the board, a notice of quarantine was served upon the plaintiff, and, after the notice, a guard was placed over his premises, and he was not permitted to leave them until the quarantine was raised on the 3d of July. While the record of the board of health recites that the plaintiff had already been quarantined, it is shown without substantial conflict that there was no restraint of the plaintiff until after the...