- Details
- Category: Uncategorised
- Hits: 2186
[dropcap]There is no specific legislation requiring farmers to notify beekeepers in advance of any intended use of poisonous sprays and other substances so it is essential that beekeepers liaise with farmers in the localities where bees are kept. It must be remembered that bees are likely to be affected if they venture through areas where spraying is taking place or has taken place, even though not foraging within them. No farmer wants to kill bees and it is well to remind farmers regularly of the bees' presence in the vicinity of their operations. And the beekeeper must do all he or she can to fit in with the farmer's and contractors' timings and commercial requirements. If spray damage is suspected, beekeepers should take a sample of at least 200 dead bees and send it to the National Bee Unit for diagnosis as to the source of the problem.[/dropcap]
Can you sue the wrongdoer?
[dropcap]This question came up in the case of Tatton and others v A D Walter Ltd. In this case, bees worked a crop of oil seed rape which was affected by seed weevils, so the farmer applied a pesticide. Although the farmer did not know the particular beekeeper's bees were working the crop, the court took the view that it could be expected that bees would work crops such as oil seed rape and because the farmer had not complied with the guidelines for spraying he was liable for the loss of the bees.[/dropcap]
- Details
- Category: Uncategorised
- Hits: 2594
The following risks in particular should be of concern to beekeepers.
A. Their liabilities to the public (Public Liability). Say, for example, you can collect a swarm and someone gets badly stung because of your negligence.
B. Beekeepers' liabilities to consumers of their hive products (Product Liability). Say, for example, honey not fit for human consumption is sold to a member of the general public who is seriously injured.
C. Loss of beekeepers' hives or equipment (Equipment Insurance).
D. Trustee Liability. This will principally concern club officials. For example, an association makes a late payment of a premium to Bee Diseases Insurance Limited, a consequence of which is that a member with a colony contracting foulbrood is unable to make a claim as the member was not insured at the relevant time.
E. Disease, notably American and European Foulbroods, Small Hive Beetle and Trophilaelaps.
This is a very broad subject and I propose to limit my comments as follows:
[1]. Public and Product Liabilities. If you are a paid-up member of your association and it is affiliated to BBKA then you have the benefit of the policy maintained by the BBKA through its brokers, Towergate. The present limit of the cover of 10million with an excess of 250.00 for third party property claims. The policy, like any other policy, is, as you would expect, subject to conditions.
If your association is not affiliated to BBKA either it (as many associations do) or you ought to be able to arrange insurance cover for these liabilities.
Can I leave you with this question? Would your association get a better deal insuring for these risks through its chosen insurance rather than through the BBKA, assuming it could get a reduction of the capitation fee payable to BBKA?
[2]. Equipment Insurance. You can approach the BBKA requesting equipment insurance who will then put you in touch with its brokers who may, or may not, issue cover. For at least small-time beekeepers I would suggest the position can normally perfectly adequately be covered if a beekeeper approaches his own household insurer and has cover extended specifically to bee equipment (but it won't cover the bees!)
[3]. Trustee Liability. It is understood that BBKA, through its brokers, may be able to arrange suitable cover. Most associations are unincorporated bodies, i.e. they are not limited companies with the result that committee members take on personal responsibility for any commitment its association makes. The classic legal way of getting over this problem is to incorporate, in other words to turn an unlimited association into a limited company or company limited by guarantee but for any association which is a charity clearly any arrangement made would have to satisfy the Charity Commissioners and any re-arrangement would be expensive and may not on that account be thought worthwhile.
E. Disease and insects (as above). Bee Disease Insurance Limited offers financial compensation for the replacement of hive parts destroyed on the instructions of an authorised NBU inspector.
- Details
- Category: Uncategorised
- Hits: 2206
[block_icon icon="icon-balance-scale"][dropcap]As beekeepers it is vital that the authorities responsible for bees and their welfare as well as the Association can freely divulge its members' details so as to deal with outbreaks of any foul brood and the like. Many associations are now obtaining specific consents from their members for this and similar purposes. In case it sounds like "Big Brother", the sole intention of the requirement is to assist all beekeepers and the National Bee Unit if and when a problem arises. On the other hand, many associations do not circulate members' details. There are clearly beekeepers who for political or other reasons do not want their details divulged. Chelsea would never share their game plan with Manchester City but for beekeepers the position is different surely? We need to know who our fellow beekeepers are, particularly those in close proximity to us so as to be sure, for example, not to encroach on their "forage areas", or, in the case of disease, to identify and deal with it decisively.[/dropcap] [/block_icon]
- Details
- Category: Uncategorised
- Hits: 12140
[dropcap]Fundamental principle: every landowner can have reasonable use and enjoyment of his/her property subject to any specific restrictions e.g. in case of tenant, tenancy agreement, terms of planning permission, etc. However, a landowner cannot exercise this right [in the case of a beekeeper, the beekeeper] if to do so would unreasonably restrict his neighbour's enjoyment of his/her property. It follows that beekeeping is no different from any other activity of mankind; you look to the effect of the activity on the neighbour and if it is, or becomes, inappropriate, the law will intervene. There are few reported law cases concerning bees and neighbours but here are some cases [both from UK and overseas] which have considered liability between the beekeeper and his neighbour.[/dropcap]
Case Histories:
O'GORMAN v O'GORMAN [IRELAND] 1903
[dropcap]Beekeeper kept twenty colonies close to his neighbour's boundary. Neighbour kept horses close to boundary. Beekeeper disturbed his bees, sometimes deliberately, and bees went beserk, neighbour thrown by a petrified horse and killed. Beekeeper behaved unreasonably and was liable.[/dropcap]
PARKER v REYNOLDS [ENGLAND] 1906
[dropcap]Beekeeper [Mr Parker] kept ten hives close to neighbour's boundary and within twenty feet of neighbour's house (so close that bees sometimes took a shortcut through the house on the way to forage).Neighbour [Mr Reynolds, who was also a beekeeper!] and family got badly stung. Mr Parker was required to move his hives.[/dropcap]
ROBINS v KENNEDY & COLUMB [NEW ZEALAND] 1931
[dropcap]Bees kept in unreasonable number and did damage to a neighbour. Beekeeper stopped. The position would probably have been different if the beekeeper had had only a few hives. A point to note is the fact that if someone gets stung that does not automatically make the beekeeper liable. Liability occurs when the number of stings and/or disturbances to the neighbour is so great that his use and enjoyment of his property is materially affected.[/dropcap]
JOHNSON v MARTIN [ENGLAND] 1950
[A case the beekeeper won!]
[dropcap]The thrust of the plaintiff's argument was that use of land for beekeeping was unreasonable and that it should be stopped. The Court found, however, that the bees in question were kept in a proper manner so the beekeeper was not liable for injury to goats on adjoining land or to their owner. The Court further confirmed that, as a general principle use of land for beekeeping was reasonable. [/dropcap]
INGAMELLS v PICKFORD [ENGLAND] 1986
[dropcap]Another case where the beekeeper kept his bees in a perfect manner but his neighbour had been stung on average two stings per year. Action by neighbour failed because her use of her property was not sufficiently disturbed by just two stings per year.[/dropcap]
Taking a Practical Approach
The expense of going to Court is likely to be prohibitive, whatever the outcome. Good relations with neighbours, as well as the good name of beekeeping, demand that beekeepers get on with neighbours, indeed all land users. It is likely to be useful to clear any bee activity with your neighbour first and if not cleared, it is probably best to keep your bees elsewhere. Even if the neighbours have initially accepted the presence of bees the beekeeper should always move his bees away if he later suspects the neighbours are becoming concerned.
Sensible location of hives, filled with nice bees, in reasonable numbers, is vital. The test I apply is this. Assuming I was the neighbour and I was wandering permanently around my garden in a swimsuit, would I be happy to have bees next door? Probably a higher standard than the law requires! Just as the beekeeper must be reasonable to his neighbour, so must the neighbour, and activities such as the poisoning of bees and setting alight of hives should, as a final resort, be referred to the relevant authorities.
Environment Act 1990.
Statutory nuisance
Environmental Protection Act 1990 ("EPA"), section 79, states that a statutory nuisance may include "any animal kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance". Actual nuisance does not have to be shown, it will suffice if the activity complained of interferes with personal comfort.
Section 80 of EPA enables a local authority which is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists or is likely to occur or recur to take various steps including the issue of a notice requiring the abatement of the nuisance or prohibiting or restricting its occurrence or recurrence. In this type of situation it will be seen that the authority can, in an extreme case, severely restrict or even close down, the beekeeper's beekeeping activities. A beekeeper receiving an abatement notice may appeal against it within a period of 21 days of service on him of the notice.
Finally, under section 82 of the EPA any person, (this includes the beekeeper's neighbour) can apply directly to a magistrate's court. The court has wide powers including to issue an abatement notice.
A beekeeper threatened with a statutory abatement notice, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, may be best advised to take his or her beekeeping activities elsewhere, given the likely costs of any action whatever its outcome.
* Reproduced here by the kind permission of Andrew Beer
- Details
- Category: Uncategorised
- Hits: 4208
[dropcap]There is much confusion, in my experience, as regards the ownership of swarms. There is also a perception held by some that a beekeeper whose bees swarm has an absolute right to follow them and take them from wherever they go. Finally, collecting swarms may involve risks not only to others and their properties but to the beekeeper himself.[/dropcap]
Ownership of Swarms
Background Note.
[dropcap]In earlier times, for all but the very rich, cane sugar and similar crops were unaffordable luxuries, so a swarm or colony provided a vital source of sweetness for the beekeeper and his family. Until the widespread introduction of the moveable frame hive, enabling the beekeeper to adopt swarm prevention measures, the acquisition of swarms was the only means of establishing and maintaining apiaries. The emergence of a swarm was therefore a major event in village life. Servants were kept on the lookout for each swarm as it emerged and pandemonium ensued as soon as it did. Bells were rung, drums were tanged (beaten), mirrors shone for a dual purpose: to induce the swarm to settle where a beekeeper could catch it and, as a general warning to the then many fellow beekeepers, that its former owner wanted it back![/dropcap]
What did the law make of all this? More pertinently, what is the legal position today?
The law can conveniently be summarised in the Swarm Ownership Indicator below.
Swarm Ownership Indicator
Situation |
Owner |
Why? |
A. Bees in your hive; your colony shows evidence of swarm plans e.g. larvae in queen cells but no swarm has emerged. |
You |
Those in hive belong to you. |
B. Bees out of the hive on colony business not in swarm. |
You |
Their intention is to return to the hive. |
C. Bees in swarm and you did not see them emerge. |
No one. Your ownership is lost when the swarm emerges [but may be regained see E below]. |
Bees have reverted to wild state over which you have no control, and nor does anyone else. |
D. Bees in swarm and you saw them emerge. |
No one but your right to follow them starts. You can become the owner of the swarm if you can take it under E or F below. |
A beekeeper who sees his swarm emerge has a right to follow them (see below). |
E. Bees in swarm described in C or D have landed - i) on your land.
ii) on somebody elses private property.
|
i) You if you catch them and to the extent that they remain under your control. ii) You if you are allowed access and you catch them, as above. N.B. If someone else takes them, whether the property owner or a person authorised by the property owner does so, he/she becomes the owner.
|
(i) and (ii). Control gives you ownership |
F. You have successfully followed and collected the swarm described in D. |
You. |
Based originally on Roman Law a beekeeper who keeps his swarm in view and collects it, can claim it. But if the swarm settles on private land, the right to follow and claim is lost. |
G. Swarm has got away, living wild anywhere, including your land. |
No one. |
No one controls it. |
Access:
Problems entering neighbouring land to collect swarms.
(a) Swarms on Private Property.
'Private Property' means any land of any kind to which the general public does NOT have right of entry whatever its use and whoever the owner, e.g. householder, company or government department e.g. H M Treasury.
Beekeepers do not have a right to enter private property to collect swarms. A beekeeper's so-called "right" to follow and collect a swarm from where it landed, if that land is another's private property, has long been rejected by the English Courts. That means that if your swarm lands, for example, in your neighbour's garden, you have no right, whatever the temptation, to collect it without your neighbour's consent. If your neighbour refuses, that should be the end of the matter. If your neighbour decides to keep it or offer it to someone else, again, you have no right to be compensated. Fortunately, consent is rarely refused; more usually it is a case of your neighbour, nowadays, urging you to remove "your bees" from "my land".
Even with consent, care is still needed. First, go onto your neighbour's land and see what equipment will be required and work out a plan of action. In particular, do you need to walk across flowerbeds? Or trim branches? Are there children around? Is damage likely? Warn that the collection may NOT go according to plan. That seemingly easy swarm may take flight and end up anywhere, including down the neighbour's chimney. Then discuss and agree and clear your plan with your neighbour. Once agreed, execute and complete the plan efficiently and leave the neighbour's land as you first agreed.
Oh yes, and don't forget honey! No beekeeper, in my view, should ever collect a swarm without offering a jar of honey in return. Works wonders for P.R. I regularly give jars of honey to my neighbours in anticipation of the swarms which may later land on their properties and get consent "up front". Bribery, if you like, but they love the honey! One of the great advantages of a swarm landing on private property, rather than in a public place (discussed later), is that on private property the swarm collection can usually be organised with the minimum of disturbance to the owner, certainly if the general public is safely out of the way.
(b) Swarms in Public Places.
By public places I mean places to which the general public has access or which he uses, for example public roads, streets and lanes, communal places and parks. The first rather obvious point is that if the general public can use these places, then so can we beekeepers. The problem is that whilst the general public may want to use, say, a road to get from A to B, we may, to get swarms, need perhaps to bring ladders, block pavements, restrict traffic, pedestrian and vehicular, which may cause serious interruption for as much as a full day.
Whilst the powers to do these things are enjoyed by, for example, the police, they are certainly not vested in us beekeepers. These shortcomings are not likely to be a serious setback in rural areas where the ways of the countryside are still embraced (for example tolerance to the regular escape of sheep or cattle from their fields). In my village I have occasionally had to block off a section of pavement and caused churchgoers to use a side entrance to our church, without the slightest complaint. In such cases, the boot is now on the other foot, one becomes "Mr Bee", on call to deal with any swarm, bee problem (usually bumble bees) and the like, and complaints come your way if you don't deal with swarms rather than if you do!
It is a different story in towns and cities, in urban environments where bees and beekeepers may not be understood and congestion of traffic and humanity may be extreme.
Swarms, as we all know, will land almost anywhere and are as likely to plump for the under-chassis of an omnibus in Oxford Street, London, W1 as a low-hanging branch in nearby Regent's Park. Extracting a swarm in these conditions is always going to be riskier in terms of obstruction and swarm recovery, leaving the beekeeper with perhaps only two options. You require either the police and/or maybe other statutory bodies, to provide a safe working environment, or, less satisfactorily, you withdraw. If the police do get involved, do not forget to point out to them that the "incident" may require up to a day to clear, or at least until nightfall, when you should be able to get the whole swarm housed in your collection box and taken away.
(c) Summary.
Our willingness to collect swarms makes us popular with the public and the authorities alike. The fact that we do not enjoy specific and sufficiently extensive rights to do this is, therefore, invariably immaterial and perhaps our only concern should be this - What are the risks?
RISKS:
Collecting swarms, like any other beekeeping activity, involves risks. What are they?
(i) Risks to others.
If you are a swarm collector, you owe a duty of care to those who foreseeably may be affected by your actions. The level of care is that of a competent swarm collector. If you fail to meet that standard then you will, in principle, be liable to anyone injured. As a practical matter, of course, the major risk is that bystanders may get stung with serious or perhaps fatal consequences. The Golden Rule is, therefore, to insist that the public are kept well away until the swarm has been caught and safely removed. Remember that whilst as beekeepers we want to save swarms (for the wider variety of genes they may carry in particular), unless you are confident you can complete the collection safely, leave well alone. The bees may, regrettably, have to be destroyed but that is better than your being sued for your efforts.
Note:
It is understood that the British Beekeepers' Association ("BBKA") currently maintains Public and Private Liability Insurance subject to a limit of indemnity of 10 million. The insured include members of the BBKA and area Associations. Like all insurance policies, the insurance is subject to conditions. It is not possible to state (and I do not state) whether or not any particular activity, or person, would (or would not) be covered by the policy. However, two points are worth stressing. First, if you fail to carry out a swarm collection (or any beekeeping activity) with the care and skill expected from a competent beekeeper, insurers may avoid any claim wholly or in part. Secondly, it can reasonably be expected that insurers, in the event of a poor claims record, may either increase the cost of insurance or alter the conditions of cover; further reasons to be very careful.
(ii) Risks to property.
When you collect swarms, you are responsible for any damage you cause (for example for a broken window, a damaged aerial, damage to roofs or gutters, blocked chimneys). Again, don't take on a swarm collection until you have assessed the risks and are wholly satisfied that you can do it; if not, do not even try. Again, it is understood that BBKA maintains cover - but see my earlier remarks.
(iii) Risks to yourself:
Whether you are kicking a football around the garden, walking the dog or collecting a swarm, you run the risk of injuring yourself. If you are injured you will not be able to seek compensation under the BBKA (or similar) policy. If you want or need your own insurance, you will need to take out separate cover extended, I suggest, for all your beekeeping activities including swarms.