THE BUSY BEE

Waikato Times, Volume 92, Issue 14338, 14 April 1920, Page 6

THE BUSY BEE

ESTABLISHING THE APIARY. LIABILITY OF AN OWNER. “Is (here any law prohibiting persons from establishing apiaries within a stated distance from a public highway?” was a question recently submitted by the Waipa County for the opinion of counsel for the New Zealand Counties’ Association. Mr Martin in his reply, read at Tuesday’s meeting, stated that the Apiaries Acts of 1908 and 1913 were silent upon this subject, and he was aware of ca statutory provision thereon. The question of liability at common law to damages in consequence of stings from bees had not been decided oy English or New Zealand Courts, but in the Irish case of O’Gorman v. O’Gorman (1903, 2lr. R 573), it was held that the defendant who kept “in an unreasonable place” (at the boundary of plaintiff’s yard), and which were smoked oul at an'unreasonable time, "an unreasonable number of bees of a dangerous and mischievous nature and accustomed to sting mankind and animals,” was liable for personal injury resulting from the plaintiff being thrown off his horse, which plunged on being stung by the bees. The above case was cited in Halsbury’s Laws of England (vol. 1, p. 3751, with the following note: “Bees, unless disturbed, do not generally sting, and probably the keeping of a few ordinary hives in an ordinary place would not render the owner liable for damage caused by their stings in the absenc _• of negligence. If kept in unreasonable numbers, however, they may amount to a nuisance.” It would be seen, therefore, that an owner who keeps bees near a highway may, in circumstances, be held liable at common law for injury by stings or resulting therefrom.