Aug. :.s, 1902. 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



553 



Such daniapes a.s the cause produced naturally but indirectly 

 are called consequential. 



In case of tort not invoIviMff malice, damages may be 

 recovered; not merely for the direct consequences, but for 

 such indirect results as might reasonably te expected to 

 ensue by a person of ordinary intelligence, or for all the 

 natural consequences of the wrongful act. 



6. I'crsonal Property ; J'respass. — For asportation or de- 

 struction of his personal property, so that the owner is 

 wholly deprived of it, he is entitled to recover its value at 

 the time of the trespass. This is the measure of damages 

 for the entire loss of the property. For an injury to it 

 there is a right to a proportionate recovery. 



The measure of damages for the conversion of property 

 is the value of the property at the time and place of conver- 

 sion. The element of damage to be considered in case of 

 injury to the person is, the plantiflf's time of loss from busi- 

 ness or employment ; his loss of capacity to perform the 

 kind of labor for which he is fitted : expenses for medical 

 services, nursing, and mental and physical pain. The same 

 rule will apply to injuries to animals. 



We have set out the above principles of damages for 

 the purpose of discovering, if possible, under what branch 

 or branches damages may be recovered for injury or losses 

 in consequence of keeping bees. In a previous article we 

 reviewed the causes of damages growing out of the nuis- 

 ances committed by bees. In this article we desire to re- 

 view the rules regarding the bee as a trespasser. One who 

 feels aggrieved by reason of trespassing bees may bring an 

 action against theowner fordamages, and may recover upon 

 proper proof and identification of the trespassers for their 

 original act of destruction ; and successive actions may be 

 brought to recover for damages for the continuation of their 

 wrongful trespassing ; but in all these cases damages are 

 estimated only to the date of the bringing of each suit [loi 

 N. v., 9.V). 



C.\P.\CITY TO TRKSP.^SS. 



Courts judicially know that bees can not be stabled as 

 other animals are ; that to do so would destroy their value 

 as property. If the owners of houses, grocers, and fruit- 

 dealers and fruit-raisers were not careless in leaving attrac- 

 tions for them, bees would commit no trespass. They would 

 go to pasture among forests, fields and amid flowers. But 

 the grocers, fruit-dealers, and fruit-raisers say they are not 

 required to screen against bees if domesticated and regarded 

 as property ; that the law should protect them from the 

 ravages of trespassing bees the same as from any other 

 trespassing animals. This is true only in so far as identifica- 

 tion can be made positive. The instinct of bees is %vell under- 

 stood, but their identification is difficult. The relation be- 

 tween fruit-growers and bee-keepers is said to be somewhat 

 strained. The former claim it to be fair to compel the bee- 

 keeper to feed his bees at home in seasons when they would 

 otherwise prove a nuisance and damaging trespassers to his 

 neighboring fruit-grower. Whether it would or would not 

 be possible to keep bees at home by feeding them heavily is 

 an open question. But this plan would entail a heavy tax 

 upon the bee-keeper. Would it be just to make the bee- 

 keeper pay this when, quite likely, the cracked and rotting 

 fruit which the bees would take from the neighbor's orchard 

 has been produced, at least has set, because of the labors in 

 pollination of these same bees ? When bees find a fair sup- 

 ply of nectar in the flowers within reach of the hive 

 they prefer that to fruit, and few bees then attack fruit. 

 But it is not at all sure that liberal feeding will keep all of 

 the bees at home, or nearly all of them, from trying to get 

 fruit sugar or juices. 



The next suggestion is that of moving away if the cost 

 would be less than feeding. But can the bee-keeper get 



away from the fruit-grower .' If the extensive fruit-grower 

 can sue and collect damages for injuries to the fruit on his 

 1,000 trees, the owner of one tree, and 1,000 owners of trees 

 within flying distance of an apiary, can also collect. If an 

 abundant bee-pasture happens to exist a few miles away, 

 the solution is easy and moving is practical. But thi.s is 

 usually of short duration ; civilization and improvements, 

 farms and fruit-gardens, soon follow, and the cry is again, 

 " Move on 1 " On the other hand, it is claimed that the 

 damages to fruit alleged to be due to bees is too remote and 

 uncertain ; and. as already stated, the benefits from pollina- 

 tion are equal to the damages. Few, if any, cases have 

 reached the higher courts, and the judgment in the lower 

 courts are largely based upon actual damages proved, and 

 identification of the trespassing bees. 



INJURY TO PERSON OK PKOPERTV. 



A small son of an Indiana farmer left the team he was 

 driving, near some bee-hives, while he chased a squirrel. 

 The horses backed the wagon into the hives, and the ani- 

 mals were so badly stung that they died. The boy was also 

 stung so badly that he lost the sight of one eye. It was 

 held that the boy's contributing negligence occasioned the 

 injury and resulting damages, and no recovery could be 

 had. 



An Iowa farmer maintained a hitching-rack at the road- 

 side in front of his residence. Near by, but within his in- 

 close, he kept a number of stands of bees. A neighbor vol- 

 untarily hitched his horses to the rack. A swarm of bees 

 settled upon the animals, causing them to break the tethers 

 and run away. In their flight they collided with a team and 

 vehicle going in an opposite direction, and both teams and 

 vehicles were damaged. It was held that the hitching of 

 the horses near the bees was a voluntary act, and the attack 

 by the bees was too remote to justify a recovery from the 

 bee-keeper for the joint damages suffered by the owners of 

 the wrecked outfits. 



In the case of Earl vs. Van Alstine (S Barbour, 6;o). the 

 New York Supreme Court held that the owner of bees is not 

 liable, at all events, for any accidental injury they may do ; 

 that one who owns or keeps an animal of any kind becomes 

 liable for any injury the animal may do, only on theground 

 of some actual or presumed negligence on his part. It was 

 alleged in this case that defendant owned and wrongfully 

 kept fifteen hives of bees in his yard adjoining the public 

 highway, and that the plaintiff's horses, while traveling 

 along the public highway, and passing the place where the 

 bees were kept, were attacked and stung so severely that 

 one died and the other was greatly injured. A judgment of 

 $71 was appealed from, and the court, in revising this judg- 

 ment, said : " In an action against the owner of bees for an 

 injury done by them to the plantifF's horses while traveling 

 along the highway where the bees were kept, it appears 

 that the bees had been kept in the same situation for nine 

 years, and there was no proof of any injury ever having 

 been done by them, but, on the contrary, neighbors testified 

 that they had been in the habit of passing and repassing 

 the place frequently, without having been molested. This 

 rebutted the idea of any notice to the bee-keeper, either 

 from the nature of the bees or otherwise, that it would be 

 dangerous to keep them in that situation, and hence he 

 could not be made liable." 



If damages be done by any domestic animal kept for 

 use or convenience, the owner is not liable to an action, with- 

 out notice (/;■ John, Rep., :;:;i)). The utility of the bees no 

 one will question, and hence there is nothing to call for the 

 application of very stringent rules in their case. However, 

 the question whether or not the keeping of bees near a 

 highway subjects their owner to a responsibility which 

 would not otherwise rest upon him has not, to our knowl- 

 edge, been passed upon. — Gleanings in Bee-Culture. 



