New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-07
RESPONSIBILITY FOR TYPHOID.


The typhoid epidemic in Butler Penn, which
is due to the turning into the public water
supply By the municipal authorities of water
which. il is said was known TO be contain
mated, raises a serious question of responsible
ity. Certainly any officer or employee of a city
who knowingly allowed typhoid germs TO be
distributed through the mains would be moral
ly, if not legally, guilty Of manslauShter, and
should be subjected to severe punishment. But
does not responsibility go further than that?
Are the people merely to hold individual Off
Gals accountable for the faithfulness with
which they guard human life? The indie
pendent suggests that a city should be held
liable in money damages to anybody who can
prove that infected water was supplied to him,
causing disease. 1t says:
Cities undertake the duty of supplying water
to their Inhabitants, or the municipal authori-
ties grant a franchise for this purpose to some
private corporation. In either case ii seems very
clear that if water is provided containing the
germs of disease when by the exercise of due
care and vigilance this danger could be avoided
action in damages should lie against the city
itself OF the holders of the franchise. The mu-
nicpality corporation through whose neglect
of such safeguards as are well recognized to be
necessary for the protection of drinking water
from contamination by disease germs citizens
are subjected TO the danger of loss of life, or Of
precious time with the worry and emotional
strain incident to long Illness, cannot Shlrk its
civil responsibility any longer. great change
has in recent years come over the state of pub
lie feeling with regard to the assessment of
damages for bodily and mental suffering in
ficted by the negligence of corporations and
their employees. The principles of law that hav"
been developed a consequence of this feeling
must hold with regard to the spread of disease
with its consequent suffering, through any of
the great public utilities, as the water or milk
supply of large cities.
This is a view which has much to commend
it, though it is not likely that under pres
onf tI,o do
i'll such cases. Nevertheless, there is just as
much reason for them as for damages on ac-
count Of a broken sidewalk. If a citizen
stumbes in a hole on the road he cap recover
damages Why should he not when the city
poisons him? When he is in the country he
supplies his own water at his own risk and can
take his own precautions. In the city he is
helpless in the hands of government. He takes
the water supplied by the city and he pays for it,
He can get no other. He has right TO expect
pure and healthful water and to look to the
city for redress if he does not get if. The nat
ure of typhoid is now well known, and the
measures 10 prevent contamination of water
supplies perfectly within the reach of every
city, so there can in this day be no excuse for
an outbreak. Nothing but gross carelessness on
the part of officials or stubborn refusal to do
right on the part of the taxpayers makes an
epidemic possible.
Many practical difficulties would be encoun-
tered in applying such rule of responsibility
1t would be hard to prove the origin of a par
ticular case. The most that could generally be
shown would be the possibility that the infec-
ton came from a particular source, since the
germs were there and the victim had been
exposed TO them. Nevertheless, any rule that
would hold cities at all liable in damages for
disease implanted through polluted water dis
tributed by them would be powerful incentive
TO proper care of watersheds.