O'Gorman v O'Gorman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 1902 |
| Date | 21 November 1902 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
K. B. Div.
Before KENNY, BARTON, and WRIGHT, JJ.
Bell v. Great Northern Railway CompanyUNK 26 L. R. Ir. 428.
Brady v. WarrenIR [1900] 2 I. R. 632.
Brown v. GilesENR 1 Car. & P. 118.
Byrne v. Great Southern and Western Railway Company Unreported.
Clark v. ChambersELR 3 Q. B. D. 327.
Cox v. BurbidgeENR 13 C. B. (N. S.) 430.
Farrer v. NelsonELR 15 Q. B. D. 258.
Fletcher v. RylandsELR L. R. 3 H. L. 330.
Jones v. BoyceENR 1 Stark. N. P. 493.
Lawrence v. JenkinELR L. R. 8 Q. B. 274.
Le Lievre v. GouldELR [1893] 1 Q. B. 491.
Lee v. RileyENR 18 C. B. (N. S.) 722.
Osborne v. ChocqueelELR [1896] 2 Q. B. 109.
Read v. EdwardsENR 17 C. B. (N. S.) 245, at p. 260.
Sanders v. TeapeUNK 51 L. T. (N. S.) 263.
Schole v. BrookUNK 63 L. T. (N. S.) 837.
Scott v. ShepherdUNK 2 Wm. Bl. 893; 1 Sm. L. C.
Smith v. London and South-Western Railway CompanyELR L. R. 6 C. P. 14.
Vaughan v. Menlove 3 Bing. (N. S.) 468. [480.
Negligence — Bees — Kept in unreasonable numbers and at an unreasonable place — Negligence in the management of beehives — Smoking hives, with knowledge of danger to those in the immediate neighbourhood — Remoteness of damage.
VOL. II.] KING'S BENCH DIVISION. 573 O'GORMAN v. O'GORMAN (1). (1901. No. 5575.) K. B. Div. 1902. Nov. 20, 21. Negligence—Bees—Kept in unreasonable numbers and at an unreasonable place—Negligence in the management of beehives—Smoking hives, with knowledge of danger to those in the immediate neighbourhood—Remoteness of damage. Plaintiff and defendant resided on adjacent farms. Defendant, who was a farmer acquainted with the ways and management of bees and horses, placed and kept upwards of twenty beehives at some distance from his own stables and farmyard, at the boundary fence beside plaintiff's yard and haggard. The bees swarming from these hives frequently caused annoyance to, and gave rise to complaints from, the inhabitants of the farm upon which plaintiff resided. On the occasion in question defendant proceeded to the hives for the purpose of removing honey, and for that purpose smoked the hives with a " smoker." For his own protection he wore a crape veil and a suit of sting-proof garÂments. There was evidence that he knew, or ought to have known, that plaintiff was likely to be tackling his horse at this very spot, and that his horse was there, but he did not warn plaintiff, or take any other precauÂtion on his account. Numbers of bees, irritated by the smoking operation, swarmed upon plaintiff and his horse. The horse, stung by the bees, dragged plaintiff and threw him violently against a wall, causing very severe injuries to his spine. The jury found that plaintiff's injuries were caused by the bees having stung plaintiff and his horse ; that they were kept on defendant's land negligently, in unreasonable numbers, at an unreasonable place, and with appreciable danger to the inhabitants of the adjoining farm ; that the bees were, to the knowledge of defendant, of a dangerous and mischievous nature, and accustomed to sting mankind and domestic animals ; and that the honey was not taken from the hives on the occasion in question with reasonable care, skill, and prudence ; and returned a general verdict for the plaintiff, with £200 damages:— Held, that, having regard to the special facts of the case and findings of the jury, the verdict ought not to be disturbed. Held, also, that the damage was not too remote. ACTION for damages for injuries inflicted by bees. The plaintiff Patrick O'Gorman was the son of a farmer residing at (1) Before KENNY, BRETON, and WRIGHT, JJ. 1903—VOL. II. 21' 574 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1903. K. B. Div. Gurtnalougha in the county Clare. The defendants Peter O'GorÂ1902. man and Michael O'Gorman, father and son, were farmers men O'GORMAN pying land adjoining that of the plaintiff's father. Some years O'GORMAN. prior to the month of September, 1900, the defendant Michael O'Gorman placed two straw beehives on his lands, and the number was increased year by year until upon the date in quesÂtion there were in a row from fourteen to twenty beehives of various descriptions at the boundary fence of, and in close proximity to, the dwelling-house and haggard of the plaintiff's father. Complaints had been made upon two or three occasions by the plaintiff and his father to the defendants of annoyance caused by the swarming of the bees. Men engaged in haymaking were obliged to cease working, and shortly before the date of the occurrence in question the plaintiff, who had been attacked while digging potatoes, complained to the defendant Peter O'Gorman, whose observation in reply was, " Are they prodding you ?" Upon the 20th September, 1900, about midday, the plaintiff brought a horse into the farmyard near the boundary fence where the beeÂhives were placed, and close up to the door of his father's dwelling-house, for the purpose of harnessing it. This was his usual time and place for harnessing the horse. The harness, which was in the kitchen, was handed to him by his mother. He had put on the winkers and long reins, and was putting on the collar and harness when a swarm of bees came across the low wall and whitethorn hedge which separated the two farm premises. Many of the bees perched on the horse, which immediately took fright, and as it started and turned plaintiff's foot caught in the reins. He was thrown against a low wall and was crushed against it by the head and breast of the horse. His back was bent over the wall. He endeavoured to get into the cow-house, but he was knocked down again by the horse at the gable of the dwelling-house. The horse then escaped from the haggard. The plaintiff at the time felt his back slightly hurt, the sight was taken from his eyes, and he was badly stung by the bees. The bees that swarmed into plaintiff's yard, and stung plainÂtiff and his horse, were at the time driven from the neighbourhood of the hives by a " smoker," which was being applied to some of the hives by Michael O'Gorman, with the object of removing VoL. IL] KING'S BENCH DIVISION. 575 honey. The defendant admitted that he knew the danger of such I. B. Im,. an operation to persons in the immediate neighbourhood. He 1902. wore a large hat and a crape veil over his face ; he had his O'GoRMAN v. hands covered and a cloak thrown over his body, all as protection O'G(antAx. against the viciousness (or stinging) of the bees. Defendant admitted that he knew that plaintiff was in the habit of coming to that place to tackle his horse, and that he saw the horse there and on previous occasions, and it was proved that this was the usual time for plaintiff to come there to tackle his horse. It was stated that after the plaintiff was thrown down the defenÂdant was called to by plaintiff's mother to come to plaintiff's assistance, but that he answered that he had not time. About a fortnight afterwards the plaintiff became weak and went to the Clare Infirmary. He attended the trial, which took place before Mr. Justice Johnson and a jury at Limerick Spring Assizes, 1902, and gave evidence on his own behalf. The medical evidence given in support of his ease was to the effect that he was suffering from conditions which would have been produced by the spine being acutely bent and the cord or membrane injured when forced on the wall. Medical evidence was given for the defendants to the effect that his condition was due to disease on both sides of the spine, and not to external injury inflicted at so recent a date as the 20th September, 1900. The defendants' ownership of the hives was also denied, it being alleged that when defendant Michael O'Gorman was appointed cess collector in 1895 lie sold six or seven of his hives and gave the rest to his sister Bridget, who had since retained them as her property. The jury found both of the issues so raised in favour of the plaintiff. Between the trial of the action and the hearing of the new trial motion the plaintiff died, and the action was revived in the name of his personal representative. The following were the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leslie Williams Defendant/Appellant v Gabriel Murraine Plaintiff/Respondent [ECSC]
...category……… 13 For the proposition that bees do not fall into this category of dangerous animals, the authority given as footnote (f) isOgorman v Ogorman (1903)22 Ir. R. 73. This report is not available so I will have to be content with reproducing the footnote. It was a case of injury and ......
-
Adderley v Great Northern Railway Company
...C. P. 253. (3) 3 T. L. R. 180, 451. (4) L. R. 5 Ex. 243, at p. 248. (5) 24 Amer. R. 689. (6) 30 L. R. Ir. 57. (7) L. R. 6 C. P. 14. (8) [1903] 2 I. R. 573. (9) [1904] 2 I. R. 317. (1) 32 Ir. L. T. 57. (2) [1892] 1 Q. B. 385. (3) 6 L. R. Ir. 199. (4) [1894] A. C. 419. (1) 3 T. L. R. 180, 451......