HORSES STUNG TO DEATH

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 5 August 1931, Page 2

HORSES STUNG TO DEATH

LIABILITY QUESTION BEEKEEPER APPEALS TO SUPREME COURT The liability of apiarists for damages for injuries caused by their bees stinging animals or persons was discussed in the Timaru Supreme Court in an appeal which is of considerable interest to beekeepers (reports the “Press”). Mr Justice Adams was on Lhe Bench. Leonard Frederick Robins, a Seadown apiarist, appealed against the decision of Mr C. R, Orr Walker, S.M., who. in lhe Magistrate’s Court awarded £65 damages to two neighbouring farmers, William Fleming Kennedy and Charles Columb, for injuries they received, and for the death of two horses and incapacitation of another animal through being stung by bees belonging to Robins.

• Mr F. J. Rolleston appeared for the appellant and Mr W. D. Campbell for the respondents.

Mr Rolleston stated that the Magistrate had found there was an absolute liability on beekeepers for damage done by their bees and also that there had been negligence in the keeping of bees in this case. Counsel submitted that if the conditions prescribed by tho Act under which bees ought to be kept were complied with, beekeepers had a statutory authority to carry on business and the apiarists were not- responsible for any reasonable consequences arising. Neither the Act nor the regulations made any provision regarding r-he distance which apiaries or beehives had to fce kept from- the road or neighbours, excepting for active negligence.

Counsel said that there was only one case in the English reports, but the question of liability of beekeepers for injuries caused by bees had been freely discussed in Canada anil the United States. He submitted an American text book which claimed that a beekeeper became liable through careless handling of bees or in a negligent way in support of his contention that the Apiaries Act was designed to protect the bee industry which was regarded as being valuable. There was no doubt that the bees were useful. QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE Touching upon the question of negligence, Mr Rolleston said that the beekeeper was absent from the hives at the times the horses and men were stung. He pointed out that the apiary was 100 ft by 45ft in which there were 75 hives, and the area occupied little over oneeighth of an acre. He contended that if the first point was decided in the appellant’s favour, the question of unreasonable location of the apiary in relation to the neighbouring property could not be raised. It was evident that it . was dangerous for the adjoining owner to cut crops during the heat of the day, and the respondent knew the risk and accepted it. lie coni ended that the owners of the adjoining crops should have cut their crop before 10 a.m. or after 3 p.m. For the respondents, Mr Campbell contended that the appellant must prove that the Magistrate’s finding that there had been negligence and a nuisance caused, were demonstrably wrong; He pointed out that there were four cases on record, including one English case, which showed that the owners of bees bad been held .responsible for in-? juries to people. He contended that there was ample evidence to justify the Magistrate in holding that there had been negligence by the unreasonable number of bees, the placing of the hives in close proximity to the boundary, and the knowledge of appellant that there was danger to neighbours. Proceeding, Mr Campbell cited Can adian cases to support his contention that apiarists must keep bees so as not to interfere with the liberty of others. He declared that it was known that the bees were dangerous to anyone in the adjoining paddock. Mr Campbell said that the authorities were clear that the owner of a tame animal, which had a dangerous propensity, was in the same position as the owner of a wild animal which was dangerous. Counsel claimed that the respondents could, if they so desired, obtain an injunction to restrain the appellant from using his property to endanger or damage his neighbour’s property. He proceeded to the authorities on the question of nuisance and submitted that- the bees came within this category because they had stung otlier members of the respondent’s family, even at the house. DECISION RESERVED , Answering the main defence that the appellant was licensed under the Apiaries Act, Mr Campbell said .that the Act was restricted and not an enabling or permissive Act. He pointed out that there were not regulations governing the size or location of apiaries and no provision for refusal of the certificate or registration on any ground. Ilis Honour: “Your contention is that if people go in for bee-keeping they must take the risk and not place the obligation on other people and keep the profits for themselves. Mr Campbell: “That is so.” He declared that it was unfair for bee-keep-ers to be allowed to dump hives against another’s fence, preventing his neighbour from using his property. “It may be an Act to protect the industry, it is an act to kill off everyone else.” His Honour said that counsel had presented a valuable and interesting argument. He reserved his decision.