Lexplug logoLexplug

Earl v. Van Alstine

New York Supreme Court
8 Barb. 630 (1850)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The owner of an animal is liable for injuries it causes only on the ground of negligence. Negligence is presumed if the animal is inherently ferocious, but for animals not naturally ferocious (such as bees), liability requires proof that the owner had notice of the animal's mischievous propensity.


Facts:

  • A defendant owned and kept bees on his property.
  • The beehives were located near a public highway.
  • The defendant had kept bees in this same location for eight or nine years prior to the incident.
  • During those years, people and teams frequently passed by the hives without ever being molested.
  • There was no evidence that the bees had caused any prior injury or demonstrated any particular mischievousness.
  • The defendant's bees caused an injury to the plaintiff.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries caused by the defendant's bees.
  • The case was heard in the county court, which found in favor of the defendant.
  • The plaintiff appealed the judgment of the county court to the present court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is an owner of bees strictly liable for injuries caused by them simply because they are classified as ferae naturae (wild animals)?


Opinions:

Majority - Selden, J.

No. The owner of bees is not strictly liable for injuries they may cause. The common law classification of animals as ferae naturae (wild) or domitae naturae (domestic) primarily concerns property rights, not liability for injuries, which should instead be based on the animal's known disposition. Liability for an animal's actions rests on the owner's negligence. Negligence is presumed when an owner keeps an animal that is naturally savage and ferocious, like a lion or bear. For animals that are not inherently ferocious, such as bees, the plaintiff must prove negligence by showing the owner had notice of the animal's mischievous propensity. Bees are useful, not typically ferocious, and have become semi-domesticated; therefore, they should not be subject to a rule of strict liability. As there was no evidence the defendant had any notice that his bees were dangerous, he was not negligent and cannot be held liable.



Analysis:

This decision marks a significant refinement of the common law rules for animal liability. The court moves away from the rigid ferae naturae / domitae naturae classification and toward a more modern, negligence-based standard focused on the animal's known propensity for mischief. By treating bees similarly to domestic animals for liability purposes, the court establishes that the key factor is not an animal's formal classification but its actual, known dangerousness. This precedent requires plaintiffs in similar cases to prove the owner had knowledge of the animal's dangerousness (scienter) unless the animal is inherently ferocious.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Earl v. Van Alstine (1850) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Earl v. Van Alstine