Subject: Re: What happens if a neighbor gets stung?

From: [email-masked] (Evan E. Twombly)
Date: 17 Apr 1996 04:08:37 GMT

In the ABC&XYZ of  Bee Culture  (35th Edition) The author of the section on
LAWS (Judge Leslie Burr) writes: In liability cases against beekeepers for
stings.

  In every one of such cases, so far as known to the writer, such cases have
been decided in favor of the beekeeper, for the reason that the complaining
witness was unable to prove that the sting received resulted from a bee, the
property of  or under control of the beekeeper made defendant.

Then goes on to site 9 cases that deal various aspects.  For example
Arkadelphia vs. Clark
  In a city ordinance banning bees in town, went to Supreme Court: decision
     Neither the keeping, owning, or raising of bees is, in itself, a
nuisance.  Bees may become a nuisance in a city, but whether they are so or
not is a question to be judicially determined in each case.
The town ordinance was struck down.

Case at Holmesburg, PA
  Attempt to restrain Joseph Rexer from keeping bees on his property. 
Neighbours claimed "that Rexer's bees stung the Allmans, their employees,
their guests, their wash and hot house flowers"  The judge held that bees
were not vicious by nature; that they were not a nuisance because they were
bees; that there were other bees in the vicinity as well as those of Rexer's
and that no proof had been advanced that Rexer bees were the offending ones.
  The judge not only dismissed the suit but ordered them to pay the cost and
in addition praised the bees for their industry

in Southern Micigan a case came where a man had 11 hives in his back yard. 
Judge wrote that since he had had the bees 26 years with only 1 complaint
they were not a nuisance.  Case dismissed.

Evan....It pays to read those reference texts we all should have on hand!