Insurance

[psafloyd]

How can one tell if it was your bee that stung someone, I have insurance that is free with WGBKA which covers property damage and loss of colonies from disease under the bees act 1980. I don't think anyone can prove that it was my bee that stung them and are feral wild bees insured ?
Check out your home insurance some include liability insurance free.

I think if your bees are near any public places then signage should be erected just to cover your bottom

True, but in a civil claim, the degree of evidence required is lesser. So, if your bees scared a horse that ran amok and killed a child (apparently this is worse than killing an adult), you'd get sued and you would have to prove that the bees next to the initial incident were not the probable source of the trigger.

 

[The Cumbrian]

T you would have to prove that the bees next to the initial incident were not the probable source of the trigger.

Has Britain suddenly strayed away from "innocent until proved guilty" or am I missing something?

 

[psafloyd]

Has Britain suddenly strayed away from "innocent until proved guilty" or am I missing something?

That's criminal law. In a civil suit, it's more about the probability of you being responsible for something. The burden of proof is lesser.

 

[hedgerow pete]

i personally would like to support any idea of insurence, even a house hold policy covers with spme form of pli so do some car policys extra.
for £15 it is well worth it, if they dont pay out when your sued you can always sue them!

at last an aternative to the bbka, hip hip hooray.

also people are dealing two ideals here and they are massively different, one is the standard legal court cases we have all seen which is criminal law, this is the one where you go to prison for you crimes,

the second one is civil, in a civil court this is the one where they make you bankcrupt and ruin the rest of your life rather than a few years in a prison.

next up is the cost, legal aid is a weak posiblity in a crimianal case but not in civil.

I hired a barister in 2004, he was part of a team so you pay for him and the others, costs were around £3,000 an hour. the esitamted costs were around £320,000 for my legal representation in the criminal case, that did not enclude the allready racked up solicitor costs from the police interviews and primary work, we won so the other people paid him not me.the other three people on my side of the case knocked up the same sort of costs aswell, i was not trialed in the civil courts because of the outcome in the criminal courts and i spent NO TIME in the dock either as i was passed over for giving evidence as i was not on site at the time of the accident





its not the £5m you need to give the injuried person its the £5m you need to pay for the baristers and solicitors fees with. the cripple gets a fiver and told to sling there hook.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Half a bee, philosophically,
Must, ipso facto, half not be.
But half the bee has got to be
Vis a vis, its entity. D'you see?

Only just spotted this

Sorry off topic

 

[thorn]

True, but in a civil claim, the degree of evidence required is lesser. So, if your bees scared a horse that ran amok and killed a child (apparently this is worse than killing an adult), you'd get sued and you would have to prove that the bees next to the initial incident were not the probable source of the trigger.

Once again absolute garbage.

 

[pbh4]

When in Surrey we lived opposite a barrister... some free advice he gave me was to remove the Beware of the Dog sign as it could be taken that I was aware that my dog could cause discomfort to a third party and having such a signage in place was an admittance of liability !

I have heard that before though I don't know if it is true. I was however struck by this sign which appeared in a recent BBC item about bees. It informs without frightening and admits nothing!

Paul

 

[bobster]

Out of interest, is "Friends of the Bees" run by Phil Chandler?

He is involved yes. But fair play to them.

I'd rather have some insurance than no insurance. But I won't join the BBKA. So I've just purchased a policy. Esp as I now have bees with a local farmer.

Bobster

PS If anyone is interested then I can send them the Policy document and sample certificate. PM me.
PPS If you're not satisfied with the product then you can get your money back within a fourteen day "cooling off" period.

 

[hedgerow pete]

the general point with a beware of the dog sign and what your friendly barrister was saving you from is the simple fact that you have just admitted to everyone that your dog is dangerous and there fore why have you dont done more to prevent it biting someone, even if they are stood the wrong side of your fence. you have publicly advertsied that you own a dog that if dangerous and will attact people but you have not put a mussle on it to prevent harm then you are excepting the fact that it will attact people,

that why we have signs that read loose dogs behind this gate instead,


and i must admit i struggle with the brief answer from Thorn, in a court of law you are either guilty or innocent and nothing inbetween, no one is almost guilty of chopping some one up, nor are you 90% innocent of almost not stealing that car, black and white, right or wrong the jury decideds ( or majistrate)

in a civil court you can be held as 25% responsible for the car accident you were involved in and as such you award has 25% removed from the total costs awarded to you, it can even go to 50% your fault and 50% the other person and this will agian effect your money awards

so do you want to explain your answer again Thorn ?

an insurence policy is a way of dealing with a risk, years ago people could get away with it as there were not the court cases and the sizable awards going on, you would be very very careless, in the event of an accident fees, charges,hourly rates all soon add up and thats before the other party want compensasion as well,

 

[alanf]

Whatever the practicalities or even likelihood of court actions, the reality of dealing with large organisations (public, private, charitable or whatever) is that they are increasingly risk averse.

As they see it, insisting on PL insurance and some sort of recognised competence certificate (BBKA basic for instance) is a way of deflecting any chance they may be sued themselves. If the question ever arises as to why they allowed someone to behave irresponsibly on property they control, the defence is that all the expected paperwork was in order.

The reality is that there is usually a clause in their insurance that excludes negligence and not checking paperwork could be negligent on their part; they won't risk invalidating their own insurance. The parks and allotment officer will insist on it because his chief executive insists on it. Argue as much as you like that it's not needed, you get nowhere. Complying is the path of least resistance. It's why 'permit to work', 'risk assessments' and other paperwork is so assiduously pursued and filed away. Nothing to actually improve health or safety, everything to create a paper trail to deflect blame. A paper trail which nobody will every see again in the normal course of events.</rant>

 

[Hebeegeebee]

A "beware of the dog sign" might just mean that the dog is stupid and will run away if the gate is opened. My neightbour has a sign saying "Do NOT open the gate, if you open this gate you will get bitten" or words to that effect. So, if I get bitten, what happens in both cases?

 

[Hebeegeebee]

Strange,an insurance you have to buy first,then work out if it is any good, then go through the process of getting your money back if its not suitable,what an ass about face way of doing things, if thats the case.

 

[peteinwilts]

does it include PLI for honey? (i.e. a shard of glass in a jar?)

bump

 

[thorn]

and i must admit i struggle with the brief answer from Thorn, in a court of law you are either guilty or innocent and nothing inbetween, no one is almost guilty of chopping some one up, nor are you 90% innocent of almost not stealing that car, black and white, right or wrong the jury decideds ( or majistrate)

in a civil court you can be held as 25% responsible for the car accident you were involved in and as such you award has 25% removed from the total costs awarded to you, it can even go to 50% your fault and 50% the other person and this will again effect your money awards

so do you want to explain your answer again Thorn ? Quote]

A finding of contributory negligence is common in accident claims, but quite simply, a beekeeper is never going to be found negligent to any degree simply because his bee has stung someone or something. He would have to have committed a negligent act himself. Keeping bees, even bees that sting, is not negligent. If you're transporting a hive and don't secure it properly so that it falls off your trailer is another matter, as would be carelessly barging into the hive and knocking it over. In such an instance, you're negligent and it's foreseeable that your bees might be angered. But if they sting a neighbour or a neighbour's horse without your having done something more the neighbour will not have a claim against you.
As for a claim from a trespasser who disturbs the hive while trying to find a way to break into your garage, very unlikely. There is a string of cases about infant trespassers going, for example, onto the flat roof of an abandoned warehouse and falling through a skylight, and on occasion they succeed with a claim because the owner has done insufficient to prevent trespass. A child can succeed where an adult wouldn't. But I have never come across a case of a child succeeding against a beekeeper in such (or any other) circumstances.
It's good to have insurance against the unexpected, but I do wish that some members of the forum wouldn't use it for relating their fantasies. As I asked earlier in this thread, does anybody actually know of a negligence claim in England and Wales? After 36 years practising as a solicitor handling negligence claims I still get the odd surprise.

 

[For want of a better word]

Trespass..... now I thought that that one was off the Statute books... criminal damage had to be caused... access to the countryside, and all that?

 

[thorn]

Trespass..... now I thought that that one was off the Statute books... criminal damage had to be caused... access to the countryside, and all that?

If I take a short cut to the pub through your garden without your consent I am a trespasser, although I may not be committing a crime. "access to the countryside does not mean access to every piece of land everywhere.

 

[MandF]

As I asked earlier in this thread, does anybody actually know of a negligence claim in England and Wales? After 36 years practising as a solicitor handling negligence claims I still get the odd surprise.

Noone will have. Noone ever does have. We had the same discussion with the "hives in the garden" debate.

You will not get sued if your neighbour, or their dog, or their horse, gets stung.

People have been keeping bees for centuries. Even when animals were commercial tools, and therefore the owner might have suffered commercial loss, is there a single case of a beekeeper being sued?

The only way I can see it happening is if a beekeeper used their bees as a weapon - ie knocked on someones door and threw a hive at someone. Or similar.

No matter what you may have seen on an episode of columbo in 1979.

 

[hedgerow pete]

i would suggest that anyone looking for further informations reads the bees and law book, i found it really intresting,

and as for thorn a solicitor, on the forum, crikey the standards have slipped so far by the way thanks for the reply, great thanks

can i just say that the next time you get stung can you photograph it and post it on the site so every one can have a laugh

anywayby being insured it does ease the issue of being charged as the police and clown prosecution service will charge youif your insured or not and its pretty meaningless to either of them at the time of the criminal charges,

the PLI is great when people try there luck by saying that because of the bee's its the claims of pain and hurt and loss of earnings etc that they try to knock you for and its those that the insurence is covering me for

 

[peterbees]

The Welsh Beekeepers' Association provides £5 million public liability insurance to all members of the 19 affiliated associations, and does not support the pesticide industry.

 

[AnotherNewBee]

The police will do nothing unless you have committed a crime (e.g. used a hive as a weapon by throwing it at someone).

If it is a civil matter it will be left to the neighbour (or whoever) to sue. The only scenarios I can think of would be:

• siting a hive too close to a boundary,
• not securing your garden/apiary to prevent children from gaining access (e.g. to retrieve a 'lost' ball that happens to have hit a hive),
• not providing adequate warning to legitimate visitors (e.g. postie gets stung walking past a hive too near his route between your gate and your letterbox).

On the whole I would expect litigation to be more likely for urban beeks than rural beeks partly because rural beeks have a better chance of siting hives in safer places, and partly because swarms are more likely to be a nuisance in urban environments.

I can't find any record of anyone being successfully sued, but that may be because most cases are settled out of court and are - therefore - never reported.

The probability of being sued may be extremely low, but the possible cost if it actually happens is extremely high. Given the low cost of PLI for beeks, compared to PLI for other businesses (e.g. £1000s for my scuba diving business) it would be foolish not to have it. I spend more on an evening in my local.