## Facts

- Benjamin Kaiser (plaintiff) sold milk in Cincinnati, Ohio.
- Edward Walsh (defendant) was an assistant milk inspector for the City of Cincinnati and was responsible for checking milk offered for sale.
- Cincinnati had a municipal regulation setting 50°F as the maximum permitted temperature for milk sold for human consumption and authorizing inspectors to confiscate and destroy milk found above that temperature.
- While performing an inspection, Walsh measured the temperature of Kaiser’s milk and found it exceeded 50°F.
- Acting under the regulation, Walsh confiscated the milk and destroyed it by throwing it into the street.
- Kaiser filed an action in Ohio state court seeking damages, alleging Walsh unlawfully deprived him of property without due process of law because the milk was destroyed without prior notice, hearing, or judicial order.
- Walsh demurred, asserting that (1) the municipal regulation authorized his conduct, and (2) precedent recognizes the police power to summarily destroy property treated as dangerous to public health without violating due process.

## Issues

1. Whether Cincinnati could, as a public-health measure, authorize a milk inspector to summarily confiscate and destroy milk found above 50°F.
2. Whether the summary destruction of such milk, without prior notice or hearing, constituted a deprivation of property without due process of law.
3. Whether an inspector acting within the authority of a valid regulation could be held liable in damages for destroying milk that fell within the regulation’s terms.

## Decision

- The Ohio Court of Common Pleas sustained Walsh’s demurrer and ruled in Walsh’s favor.
- The court treated the Cincinnati milk-temperature rule as a lawful health regulation adopted under the police power.
- The court rejected Kaiser’s due-process theory, concluding that property considered unsafe for public consumption under a valid health regulation may be destroyed summarily without a pre-destruction judicial hearing.
- Because Walsh acted pursuant to municipal authority and within the regulation’s enforcement standard (temperature above 50°F), Kaiser’s pleading did not state a basis for damages against Walsh.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality may enact reasonable regulations governing the sale of perishable food when aimed at protecting public health.
- When a valid health regulation treats certain food as unwholesome (here, milk above a specified temperature), the government may authorize summary seizure and destruction to prevent harm.
- Due process does not invariably require a pre-deprivation hearing where immediate action is authorized to protect the public from unsafe food; post-deprivation remedies may suffice.
- An officer who enforces a valid ordinance within its scope is generally not liable in damages merely because the enforcement results in destruction of the regulated property.

## Conclusion

In *Benjamin Kaiser v. Edward Walsh, Asst. Milk Inspector of Cincinnati*, the Ohio Court of Common Pleas held that Cincinnati could, as a health measure, authorize inspectors to confiscate and destroy milk found above 50°F, and that such summary destruction did not violate due process; therefore, Kaiser’s damages claim against Walsh failed on demurrer.


Benjamin Kaiser v. Edward Walsh, Asst. Milk Inspector of Cincinnati, 17 Ohio Dec. 324 (1906)