Public health, private right, and the common law

References 

1. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256. The Smoke Ball Co had advertised an offer to pay £100 to anyone who contracted influenza after buying one of their smoke balls and using it in the specified way. The claimant had bought a smoke ball and used it according to the instructions but had nevertheless contracted influenza. She sued for damages for breach of contract.
2. For a wonderful account, see Simpson A. Quackery and contract law: the case of the carbolic smoke ball. Journal of Legal Studies 1985;14:345.
3. [1932] All ER 1. The claimant suffered from gastro-enteritis after drinking ginger beer from an opaque bottle which turned out to contain a decomposed snail. The ginger beer had been bought for her by a friend, and so she could not sue for breach of contract. She sought damages in tort from the manufacturers of the ginger beer.
4. See Kennedy RF Jr. Crimes against nature. London: Penguin Books Ltd; 2004. p. 13.
5. See da Lomba S, Martin R. Public health powers in relation to infectious tuberculosis in England and France: a comparison of approaches. Med Law Int 2004;6:117.
6. Gostin LO. Public health law. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2000;p. 13
7. Compare, Gostin LO, note 6 above, p. 320–1.
8. See Department of Health. Tackling health inequalities: a programme for action, July 2003.
9. See Macbeth HN, editor. Health outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996Teeling Smith G, editor. Measuring health: a practical approach, Chichester: Wiley; 1988.
10. Hart HLA. The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1961;
11. Seminally, albeit qua “formalism”, see Weinrib EJ. The idea of private law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1995.
12. Weinrib LE, Weinrib EJ. Constitutional values and private law in Canada, In: Friedmann D, Barak-Erez D, editors. Human rights in private law. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2001. p. 43, 46–7.
13. See ibid, 47.
14. [2003] UKHL 66. For comment on Marcic and the equally restrictive decision in Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61, see Lee M. Private nuisance in the House of Lords: Back to basics. KCLJ 2000;15:417.
15. Mr Marcic also pleaded, unsuccessfully, a Human Rights Act point; but this is not directly of relevance to the present discussion.
16. Some householders, for example, experienced internal fouling and flooding.
17. See especially Lord Hoffmann's judgment at paras 63 and 64.
18. See Stovin v Wise (Norfolk County Council, Third Party) [1996] 3 WLR 388; on which, see Convery J. Public or private? Duty of care in a statutory framework: Stovin v Wise in the House of Lords. Modern Law Review 1997; 60: 559.
19. Compare Kennedy, note 4 above, for the way in which the US Environmental Protection Agency has been hobbled by the Bush administration. Tellingly, Eric Schaeffer, former chief prosecutor with the Agency, remarks: ‘The EPA is no longer a public health agency. It's become a country club for America's polluters’. p. 34.
20. New York: St Martin's Press; 2001.
21. Frith M. Exposed: how drugs giant pushed Vioxx Painkiller. The Independent, August 22, 2005, p. 1Burleigh J. Vioxx firm may settle with drug claimants. The Independent, August 27, 2005, p. 28and see, too, Prosser D. Class action offers hope in the legal battle against Goliath. The Independent, August 27, 2005, Save and Spend p. 3.
22. McGillivray D, Wightman J. Private rights, public interests and the environment. In:  Hayward T,  O’Neill J editor. Justice, property and the environment. Aldershot: Ashgate; 1997;p. 144;at 154Also, Steele J. Private law and the environment: nuisance in context, Legal Studies 1995;15:236.
23. Generally see Gunningham N, Grabosky P. Smart regulation. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1998.
24. Gostin LO. op cit, note 6 above, 270 (footnotes and references omitted).
25. Compare Biegel S. Beyond our control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003;[Chapter 4]Cappelletti M. Alternative dispute resolution processes within the framework of the world-wide access-to-justice movement. Modern Law Rev. 1993;56:282
26. Famously, see Galanter M. Why the ‘Haves’ come out ahead: speculation on the limits of legal change. Law Society Rev 1974;9:95.
27. The relaxation of standard causation principles in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] 3 WLR 89, does not assist claimants who need the co-operation of better informed defendants if the right causal link is to be established.
28. In order to deliver on the 3Es, the first smart lesson is to recognise the limits of single instrument approaches; and the second lesson is to be aware of the range of regulatory instruments and the importance of putting in place an optimal mix: see Gunningham and Grabosky, note 23, above. For a review of the state of the (post-regulatory) art, see Scott C. Regulation in the age of governance: the rise of the post-regulatory state. In: Jordana J, Levi Faur D, editors. The politics of regulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2004. p. 145.
29. For more on the regulatory range within the law, see Brownsword R. Regulating human genetics: new dilemmas for a new millennium. Med Law Rev 2004;12:14.
30. See Yeung K. Securing compliance: a principled approach. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2004. p. 5.
31. Lessig L. Code and others laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books; 1999 [Chapter 7]Lessig L. The law of the horse: what cyberlaw might teach. Harvard Law Rev 1999;113:501, 507–14. For further development, see Murray A, Scott C. Controlling the new media: hybrid responses to new forms of power. Modern Law Rev 2002;65:491.
32. Code, at 93-94.
33. Compare the account in Nozick R. Anarchy, state, and Utopia, Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1974.
34. Compare George V, Wilding P. Ideology and social welfare. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1976;
35. Compare Gostin LO, op cit, note 6 above, at 20.
36. See http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk; and McHale JV. Regulating genetic databases: some legal and ethical issues. Medical Law Rev 2004; 12: 70, 72–73.
37. Compare Jacobson v Massachusetts 197 US 11 (1905).
38. Rawls J. A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1973;
39. Compare the general thesis in Gewirth A. Reason and Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1978;as later elaborated in Community of rights. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996.
40. Brownsword R. Reproductive opportunities and regulatory challenges. Modern Law Rev. 2004;67:304