Fall ‘20: The Impact of the Pandemic
The
NOVEL
Pandemic Jurisprudence by: quintin lindsmith
This is not our first pandemic rodeo. But it may as well be, because virtually no one was around when our nation’s first pandemic hit 102 years ago. Still, reports from then reveal surprising similarities in how the country reacted to the pandemic. Mask-wearing was mandated by law in some regions, but not others. There was even violence over maskwearing, including an incident where a board of health special officer shot a man for refusing to wear a mask. (The officer paid a $5 fine and the mayor had to pay a $50 fine.)1 And there was resistance to mask-wearing, including the
formation of an “Anti-Mask League.”2 The worst of the flu hit just before the 1918 midterm elections, and some polling places did not even open because “there were not enough citizens who were well enough and willing to serve on the election board during the influenza pandemic.”3 At polling places that were open, people were advised to enter “one or two at a time,” and instructions urged “not congregating at the polls and avoiding needless exposure.”4 But one area of significant difference between the 1918 flu and the current pandemic is the involvement of the courts and the development of the law. The almost complete absence of precedential residue from the first pandemic suggests there was relatively little litigation directly related
There may be several reasons why there was so little flu-related litigation during and after the first pandemic. Overall, the U.S. was a much less litigious society in 1918. That is partially because the jurisprudence in a number of areas was undeveloped or non-existent. 40 | Columbus Bar Lawyers Quarterly Fall 2020
