Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. We might in this connection refer to some of the observations of Lord Blackburn in the case of the Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill L. R. 6. App. Cas. 193 (205) where the question to be decided was whether a small-pox hospital was a public nuisance, and where the duty not to spread infectious disease was considered. Lord BLACKBURN in the course of his judgment observed as follows: " Where those who have the custody of the person sick of an infectious. disorder have not the means of isolating him from the other inmates which is very commonly the case with the poor, and consequently those other inmates and the neighbours are exposed to the risk of infection, I think that the inability to isolate him would form a sufficient excuse to be a defence to any indictment; and I think also, though I am not aware of any authority on the subject, that the neighbours could not maintain any action for the damage which they would in such a case sustain from the proximity of the infected person, it being & necessary incident to the use of property for habitations in a town that contagious sickness may befall their neighbours. If those who have the charge of the infected person have the means of isolating him on the spot, they certainly do well to use them, and, if it cannot be done on the spot, and they can, either by their own means, or by the aid of charitable persons who have erected an hospital, find a place where he can be isolated so as to avoid the risk of infection, they will do well to use these means. I do not mean to express any opinion as to whether, at common law, they would or would not be responsible for not doing so; but there is no authority, and I think no principle, for saying that they are justified in removing him to a place where the neighbours would be exposed to contagion, though it may be that those neighbours would be fewer in number than the neighbours of the spot where the infection broke out, nor for saying that, if that was done, and the contagion was such as to amount to a real nuisance, those neighbours might not maintain an action and obtain an injunction to protect themselves against the importation of foreign infection. For though, as I have already said, I think it an incident to the use of a habitation in a town that the occupier must bear the necessary risks of the inmates of a neighbouring habitation falling ill of a contagious disease, I do not think it an incident that he is to submit to his neighbours, wilfully though for very laudable motives, and not maliciously, bringing in contagion, where it did not previously exist, if the effect is not merely to alarm him, but to injure him. This, I think, is borne out by the decisions on the subject of inoculation." These observations are instructive in the present case.