## Facts

- A smallpox outbreak occurred in a Maine municipality.
- Calvin Seavey, a physician and homeowner, contracted smallpox and was treated at his residence.
- Melvin Preble, the city physician acting under municipal public-health authority, concluded the house wallpaper was contaminated (including by Seavey’s sputum) and ordered its removal as a contagion-control measure.
- Seavey believed the measure medically unnecessary but complied, removed the wallpaper, and later replaced it.
- Seavey sued Preble to recover the replacement cost, asserting an unauthorized interference with his property.
- At trial, experts conflicted: Seavey’s witnesses denied necessity; Preble’s witnesses (including a nurse with firsthand knowledge) supported the precaution.
- The jury returned a verdict for Seavey for $35; Preble appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a city health officer may order removal or destruction of potentially infectious property during a contagious-disease emergency without personal liability when acting under statutory/public-health authority.
2. Whether personal liability turns on after-the-fact disagreement about medical necessity, or on whether the officer acted in good faith on reasonable grounds within the scope of duty.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment for Seavey and set aside the jury’s verdict.
- The court held that a health officer is justified in ordering preventive measures that impair private property when, within statutory duty, the officer honestly and reasonably believes the action is necessary to prevent contagion.
- Conflicting medical opinions about necessity did not, by itself, establish actionable wrongdoing or personal liability.

## Legal Principles

- During a contagious-disease outbreak, public-health statutes may require “all possible care” and authorize vigorous measures to prevent spread.
- A health officer acting within legal authority is not personally liable in damages for resulting property impairment if the officer acts in good faith and on reasonable grounds to believe the measure is required for public health.
- The law evaluates the officer’s reasonable judgment under emergency conditions, not whether medical experts later reach consensus that the measure was necessary.
- Public necessity can justify what would otherwise be tortious interference with property when reasonably undertaken to avert serious public harm.

## Conclusion

The court held that a municipal health physician who, during a smallpox outbreak, ordered removal of allegedly contaminated wallpaper was not personally liable for the homeowner’s replacement costs where the order was within statutory public-health duties and made in good faith on reasonable grounds, even though the measure’s necessity was disputed.


Seavey v. Preble, 64 Me. 120 (1874)