Leslie Williams Defendant/Appellant v Gabriel Murraine Plaintiff/Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Judge: ROBOTHAM, C.J.,Chief Justice
• Judgment Date: 16 November 1987
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1987] ECSC J1116-1
• Docket Number: Magisterial Appeal No. 7 of 1986
• Court: Court of Appeal (Montserrat)
• Date: 16 November 1987

[1987] ECSC J1116-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Robotham—Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Bishop

The Honourable Mr. Justice Moe

Magisterial Appeal No. 7 of 1986

Between:

Leslie Williams

Defendant/Appellant

and

Gabriel Murraine

Plaintiff/Respondent

Appearances:

John Kelsick for the Appellant

Kenneth Allen for the Respondent

ROBOTHAM, C.J.

1 This is an appeal which does not involve any complicated questions of fact but rather a determination of the question of Law namely, what is the liability, if any, of the owner of bees which are hived, where they cause personal injury to a person working on his adjoining property.

2 The facts simply stated are that the defendant/appellant, Leslie Williams, is a commercial bee-keeper who has in a state of reclamation or captivity 20 hives of bees on his land at Harris in Montserrat which land is comprised of 1¹/₂ acres. The respondent Gabriel Murraine, farms a small portion of land adjacent to that where the appellant has his bees hived some 50 yards away on the hillside.

3 Up to 31 May 1986, the respondent had farmed his piece of land on a regular basis for a period of two years and there was no complaint about his being stung by the appellant's bees. Indeed when he commenced working his land, the appellant already had his bees on his 1¹/₂ acres of land. On the said 31 May, whilst the respondent was working on his piece of land, he was bitten in four places by bees.

4 There was no contest that the bees were belonging to the appellant. The contention put forward by the appellant was that the respondent swatted the bees whilst they were foraging, despite being warned by the appellant not to do so, and being told that the bees would not sting him unless they were molested. It was whilst he was none-the-less so engaged in swatting the bees from the flowers, that he was bitten.

5 The appllant also stated in his evidence that he had imported from the U.S.A. a queen bee, and because of the presence of the queen bee on the land, wild bees were also attracted thereto.

6 Also giving evidence for the appellant in the Court below was Franklyn Margetson, the Manager of the local Land Development Authority and himself a bee-keeper. He stated that there were at least 20 beekeepers in Montserrat, and that the strain of bees are honey bees, or Italian bees which are more docile than wild bees. Bees he said forage over an area of 4–5 miles, and do not attach human beings, unless they themselves molested.

7 Unfortunately the Magistrate in his reasons for judgment stated that he excluded Margetson's evidence from his consideration of the case because no application was made at the trial for him to be treated as an expert. In this he was clearly wrong. There was no need for such an application to be made and the question for the Magistrate to consider was what weight and value he was going to attach to such evidence.

8 The Magistrate in accepting the submission of Counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent held that liability for the stings suffered by the plaintiff was governed by the rule in Rylands and Fletcher and awarded the plaintiff damages amounting to $110 with costs $120. His specific findings were (1) that bees are not dangerous creatures, (2) that they are wild by nature and were not confined, (3) that there was thus a risk in bee-keeping and (4) the bees escaped from 'the defendant's land and injured the plaintiff.

9 The first question to be asked in dealing with this appeal is how are bees to be classified?

10 In the first place they are classed as wild or ferae naturae animals. There is no absolute property in wild animals such as bees. A person may however acquire what is known as a qualified property in them by lawfully taking or reclaiming them. This property remains in the person reclaiming them, until they regain or return to the natural liberty, without any animus revertendi. It follows therefore that bee-keeping is not unlawful in Montserrat and that an action for trespass would lie against any person who without lawful excuse takes bees from a hive in which they are kept in a state of capacity—see Halsburys Laws of England, 4th edition, vol. 2 paras 205, 206.

11 The liability for injuries caused by animals depends on their known nature. Those which have been domesticated, e.g., dogs, and are by theirnature harmless create no liability on the part of the owner for injury done unless there is proof of a vicious propensity or scienter, which was known to the owner. Once this knowledge is known to the owner, he keeps the animal at his peril. This rule of course is subject to any statutory exceptions. On the other hand, animals which are naturally...