Can a property owner be held liable for incidents such as if bee stings someone while on their property?

Question

Or if a tree branch falls and hits someone? Wouldn't these be considered "acts of God"? You can't control nature!

Answer 1

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Do not rely on this for any purpose.

Coragryph is partially correct.

Whether a landowner can be held liable for the torts suffered by a person who is on the landowner's property depends on the status of the individual and whether the landowner breached her duty with respect to individuals of that status.

Under the common law, the individual could be classified as either a (1) trespasser, (2) licensee, or (3) invitee.

The duty owed to a trespasser depends on whether they are a discovered or foreseeable trespasser. If they are an undiscovered or unforeseeable trespasser, the landowner owes no duty to that trespasser so long as the landowner does not purposefully harm the trespasser. If the trespasser is a discovered or foreseeable trespasser, the landowner has a duty to warn or make safe all highly dangerous, non-obvious artificial conditions. The landowner has no duty to warn or make safe any natural conditions of the land.

If the individual is a licensee, such as a social guest, the landowner must warn or make safe all non-obvious dangerous artificial and natural conditions. As to active operations, the landowner only does a duty of due care.

The highest duty is owed when the individual is an invitee, such as a customer who enters a store. Under this theory, the landowner owes the same duty as she owes a licensee, except that she must also reasonably inspect and make safe hazards on her property. (That's one of the reasons why you now see those yellow wet floor triangle warnings. By posting that warning, the building owner has satisfied its duty.) However, there will be no liability if the invitee exceeds the scope of the consent. For example, if I owned a store and a customer walked into one of my backrooms that are off limit to customers and she gets hurt, I would not be liable for the non-intentional tort injuries she suffered while in that room because she exceeded the scope of my invitation (which is limited to browsing through the stores where customers are generally allowed to go). I could, of course, still be liable for any intentional torts.

As mentioned earlier, these are based on the common law. There may have been statutory modifications in your jurisdiction.

Answer 2

No because there is no way a person could reasonably prevent bees from coming into their property. If a tree branch falls and hits someone that's slightly different because the property owner has to insure that the trees are safe and not likely to fall on someone. Now if the tree got hit by lightening and fell it would be considered an act of god.

Answer 3

Yes, a property owner can be held liable for "acts of god" on their property. But it depends on who the injured party is.

The laws vary by state, but there are common standards.

If the person is a trespasser, the property owner is only liable for artificial conditions, and only has a duty to warn of those hazards.

If the person is a social guest, the property owner has a duty to fix any artificial conditions (and to inspect for them), and a duty to warn of known natural hazards. So, if the owner knew a tree was rotten, or knew about a bee hive, there would be a duty to warn.

Also, if the property owner kept the bees (rather than it being a "wild" hive) or had planted the tree, that increases their duty, since the conditions are no longer "natural".

Answer 4

If the property owner was negligent, he or she may be held liable. For example, the property owner knew there was a hive of killer bees on his property or the tree branch was about to fall off, but he didn't eradicate the problem.

If the property owner wasn't aware that there was any danger he may not be liable.

Answer 5

A bee sting would probably be an Act of God. A case might be made for a tree branch, claiming that the owner should have properly maintained the trees by cutting the weak branches out, but it would probably be hard to find a judge or jury to swallow that one.

Except in California.

Answer 6

Bees - no. But there could be a case for the fallen tree limb. It could be argued that as the homeowner you were negligent for not making sure dead branches were removed in a timely manner.

Answer 7

i think that the homeowner could be liable but wouldn't that be covered under the homeowners insurance policy. i had a coworker who was at a picnic at friends house playing volleyball in backyard. there was a hole in the ground and she broke ankle. she did not have health insurance so the homeowner entered a claim and it was paid by the homeowners insurance /injury on your property portion of the insurance plan.

Answer 8

anyone can sue for anything, this doesn't mean that they will win but it cost money to defend yourself.

it would be hard to give an opinion based upon the facts you have presented us as their are many variables based on the incident.

if a complainant could prove negligence then you would be liable for any damages.

Answer 9

Depends on 'at fault' Did you KNOW about the hanging branch or the bees nest?

Answer 10

There usually has to be some sort of provable negligence, depends on which state you live in

....like an uneven stairwell, or nails in a driveway...something foreseeable and thus preventable.