Ammons v. Kellogg

• Decision Date: 26 January 1925
• Docket Number: 24549
• Citation: 137 Miss. 551,102 So. 562
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: AMMONS v. KELLOGG. [*]

102 So. 562

137 Miss. 551

AMMONS v. KELLOGG. ^[*]

No. 24549

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 26, 1925

Division B

1 ANIMALS. Owner of bees attacking animals liable for damages.

The owner of bees who has reasonable notice of the vicious character of such bees in attacking animals is liable for the damages resulting therefrom where he places the bees in proximity to where he knows such animals will be used.

2 ANIMALS. Evidence held to show defendant's bees attacked animals.

In an action for damages against the owner of bees for their vicious attack, upon animals, evidence that the defendant had large numbers of bees in the immediate vicinity of the attack, with proof that the bees came from the direction in which the hives were located, is sufficient for the jury to infer that the defendant's bees did the damage.

HON. S F. DAVIS, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Washington county, HON. S. F. DAVIS, Judge.

Action by Charles Kellogg against Will Ammons. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Boddie & Farish, for appellant.

The appellant prosecutes this appellee from a judgment rendered by the circuit court of Washington county at its June term, 1924, in favor of the appellee for two hundred fifty dollars, the alleged value of a horse and mule stung to death while plowing in a field some seventy-five yards away from a drainage ditch embankment ten feet above the level of the field, by a swarm of bees alleged to have belonged to appellant. Appellant had maintained eighty-two hives of bees on top of said embankment for six or seven years prior to the occurrence complained of, maintaining them, as shown by the evidence in the case, in a proper and reasonably careful manner. We submit that if the appellant is to be held liable for the value of the horse and mule stung to death under the circumstances shown in this case, that no one in the state can safely engage in the bee business and that the honey industry is about the most hazardous business that one can engage in. We are at a loss to know what greater care and caution a man can adopt than was exercised by the appellant. The rows that the appellee was plowing are shown to be twenty feet from the base of the embankment on which the hives were. The proof shows that there was much brush and shrubbery growing on the embankment and that the appellant had sowed sweet clover thereon, from which his bees sucked the nectar, and that cattle had been grazing on top of the embankment.

We, also, submit that a fair reading of the testimony shows that the appellant had no reason whatever to believe that his bees would attack men and animals plowing in the surrounding fields, although something is said about one or two of them having attacked his own horse, and it seems that one negro some years ago gave up his land because of the bees; but the appellant, as shown by the proof, had never heard of that. The witness, Rafe, says that appellant told him that some bees stung him once, but he stated over and over again that he did not refer to these particular bees. This is the first and only "bee case" that this court has been called upon to pass on so far as we can find, but it seems that there have been a few such cases passed on by the courts of last resort, among them being the case of Parsons v. Phillip Manser, 62 L. R. A. 132. In that case, the defendant had located his hives within a few feet of a post which he had fixed for fastening horses to, and the defendant knew that bees were prone to attack perspiring horses. The evidence in this case fails to show any such knowledge on the part of the appellant, and we submit with confidence that it shows affirmatively that he not only exercised reasonable care in the location of his bees, but that he could not have selected a place for their location where they would be less liable to inflict injury. They were a mile and a half in the country on top of a ten foot embankment, the base of which was twenty feet away from the plowed ground, and the manner in which they were hived and kept is shown by the undisputed proof to have been proper.

Bees should be differentiated from animals, such as bulls, dogs or horses. If a man owns a bull or a dog or a horse that he keeps on his premises without knowledge of vicious propensities on the animal's part, and such animal injures another, the owner is not liable; whereas, if the owner has reason to believe that such animal will inflict injury, yet permits him to run at large, he is liable for whatever injury the animal inflicts. It is common knowledge that animals differ from each other in disposition and conduct, and we submit that it is common knowledge that there is no difference between any two hives of bees. The habits, disposition and propensity of honey bees is now, has been and always will be the same, and we think that this court should take judicial notice of the doings and habits of bees, as it is such common knowledge.

Wynn & Hafter, for appellee.

The appellee brought suit in the circuit court of Washington county, Mississippi for the sum of five hundred dollars being the alleged value of his mule and horse which were stung to death by the bees owned by the appellant. No recovery was asked for injury done to the appellee and his son. Upon the closing of the testimony instructions were passed on by the court and the jury returned a verdict for the appellee for the sum of two hundred fifty dollars, and from that verdict the appellant has taken this appeal. Appellant relies upon the refusal of the lower court to grant the peremptory instructions as the basis of reversal. The question of negligence in placing and keeping the bees, as well as the keeping of the bees after the appellant had knowledge of their vicious propensities, was clearly a question for the jury. We have failed to find any case in which the supreme court of Mississippi has ruled on the law governing this question. However, the question...