BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Peter Amschel <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 19 Apr 1998 17:09:47 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (73 lines)
In the following case our San Bernardino appeals court upheld the
dismissal of  a claim by a person in Cathedral City who had sued the
landlord of the premises where a brown recluse spider bit him. Here
are some excerpts from the case:
 
Brunelle v. Signore [215 Cal.App.3d 122]
October 31, 1989.]
 
Plaintiff has not cited nor has our research revealed any California
case that discusses the issue of whether an owner or occupier of a
residence, a business or a hotel/motel may be held liable for
plaintiff's injury as a result of an insect or spider bite sustained
on the premises. Our research has also failed to reveal any case in
any jurisdiction within the United States in which an owner or
occupier of a private residence was held liable for injuries sustained
as a result of an insect or spider bite. In addition, we note that the
very few out-of-state cases which have considered the issue of whether
a owner of a business or a hotel/motel may be held liable for injury
sustained as a result of an insect bite have split on the issue. fn. 3
Only one of those, {Page 215 Cal.App.3d 129} Rhodes v. B.C. Moore &
Sons, Inc., supra, 153 Ga.App. 106 [264 S.E.2d 500], discussed the
question of duty. The Rhodes court concluded that in the absence of
knowledge of such a danger, i.e., the presence of or imminent attack
by a flying, stinging insect, there was no duty on the part of the
proprietor to take specific steps to prevent the injury by a bee or
yellow jacket. (Id., at p. 501.)
 
-FN 3. As stated, out-of-state cases are split on the issue of
liability of businesses and/or hotels/motels for injury sustained as a
result of insect bites:
 
Yes: Brasseaux v. Stand-By Corp. (La.App. 1981) 402 So.2d 140,
certiorari denied (La.1981) 409 So.2d 617 [motel held liable for
injury caused when plaintiff slipped and fell in shower while trying
to avoid being stung by bees coming out of shower head, defendant's
liability based on facts that defendant knew bees were outside motel,
had hired beekeeper to remove bees, and failed to warn plaintiff of
bees near his room]; CeBuzz, Inc. v. Sniderman (1970) 171 Colo. 246
[466 P.2d 457] [grocery store liable for injury as result of spider
bite where same type of insect seen a few days earlier and no evidence
of effort to protect or prevent].
 
No: Rhodes v. B. C. Moore & Sons, Inc. (1980) 153 Ga.App. 106 [264
S.E.2d 500] [retail store not liable for insect bite, court found no
actionable negligence for  bee sting or insect bite where defendant
could not have discovered  and prevented condition or circumstances,
no duty in absence of knowledge]; Cunningham v. Neil House Hotel Co.
(Ohio App. 1940) 33 N.E.2d 859 [no  liability for insect sting,
negligence cannot be presumed, defendant  had no knowledge of
presence of particular insect, insect that stung plaintiff never seen
nor identified by anyone].
 
As explained by the California Supreme Court, "'duty' is not an
immutable fact of nature '"but only an expression of the sum total of
those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the
particular plaintiff is entitled to protection."'" (Ballard v. Uribe,
supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 572 , fn. 6, citations omitted.) Whether a duty
of care exists "is a question of law to be determined on a
case-by-case basis." (Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38
Cal.3d 112 , 124 [211 Cal.Rptr. 356, 695 P.2d 653].)
 
In making its determination, the court must weigh several factors:
"[T]he foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of
certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the
connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered,
the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of
preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and
consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with
resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and
prevalence of insurance for the risk involved. [Citations.]" (Rowland
v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 113 ; Isaacs v. Huntington
Memorial Hospital, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 124 -125.)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2