- Thanks to CuriosityStream
for keeping LegalEagle in the air.
By clicking the link in the description,
you'll also get Nebula for free,
a streaming platform made
by and for creators like me.
You know how normal people behave?
Maybe you're one of them.
You can hear a legal hypothetical
and then you can disregard it for, say,
the rest of your entire life.
I'm not one of those people.
If I hear a legal hypothetical,
I'm going to run down
every single permutation
and every single applicable
law I can think of
until I have an answer.
It's sort of like how Lewis
Black when he overhead,
"If it weren't for my horse,
"I never would have
gotten through college,"
and then that's all he could think of
for the entire rest of his day.
Something like that
happened to me recently
when I came upon a Reddit
post that asked the question,
can I sue my beekeeper neighbor?
Apparently, the beekeeper's bees
were stealing the neighbor's pollen
and turning it into honey.
The question was also shared
on the popular social media
hive known as Twitter.
And if you don't think that this video
is going to be filled with
all kinds of bee puns,
you are sadly mistaken, my friend.
I've covered bee law before
and I'm not afraid to go back again.
- Objection!
- Oh, the non-lawyer makes an objection.
Now of course the beekeeper neighbor
sounds like the setup for a horror movie
about a man who roams the neighborhood
in a beekeeper outfit,
terrorizing children on Halloween
with one of those little
smoke canister things.
I'm not exactly sure how
he would kill people,
but, you know, that's for the
movie execs to figure out.
And I know that this would be
a straight-to-streaming knock
off of "Friday the 13th,"
but this redittor's problem is more basic
than a serial-killing beekeeper.
He writes, "Every day I
see my neighbor's bees
"flying around my garden,
"stealing the pollen or
nectar from my flowers.
"Then the bees go back to my neighbor
"and creates honey.
"My neighbor then harvests the honey
"and sells it at the
farmers' market for a profit.
"I have never received so much
"as a jar of honey as compensation,
"and every day my neighbor's bees
"trespass and steal my flowers.
"I was stung once when I was a child,
"so I know how dangerous bees can be.
"The way I see it,
"this is equivalent to a
person's dog coming into my yard
"to steal balls or tools."
You know, as dogs do.
"Then gives it back to his owner
"who then sells it for profit.
"Do I have legal grounds to sue?
"What type of things
should I begin documenting
"in order to prepare for a legal battle?
"What would be a fair settlement amount
"if my neighbor doesn't
want to take this to court?
"Thanks for the help."
This is so ridiculous.
So, does this redditor have the right
to sue the neighbor and his pesky bees
for the return of his extremely,
in quotes, valuable pollen?
Let's find out.
(upbeat rock music)
Now, as you may know,
there are 20,000 species
of bees in the world.
You may want to tell
bees to just buzz off,
but wild bees play a serious role
in making sure humans get to eat.
Bees pollinate plants that
are not capable of reproducing
without the aid of bees.
The plants grow up to
produce fruit and vegetables
that we eat.
The western honey bee is
the biggest pollinator in the world.
Many people domesticate
and breed honey bees
for exactly this purpose.
It's a whole cottage industry.
Beekeepers are sort of the hired guns
of the agricultural world.
They are hired and they
bring a truckload of bees
to help pollinate certain orchards.
In fact, the demand for almond milk
has led to an increased demand for bees.
Now American beekeepers have
had great financial success
renting out their hive to
commercial almond producers.
However, success comes at a steep cost.
50 billion bees were
annihilated in just a few months
during the winter of 2018 and 2019.
The culprit, as you may know,
stems from the herbicides
and pesticides that are used,
as well as the intense
environment for producing almonds.
The bees are forced to
work in a mono culture
rather than a bio-diverse environment
where bees naturally thrive.
The worker bees are stressed out, used up,
and ultimately die in
what one scientist called
war-like circumstances.
He said, "It's like
sending the bees to war.
"Many don't come back."
- Buzz, buzz, buzz,
buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz,
buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz.
(helmets whoosh)
- Now I know, I know, you didn't come here
to listen to a monologue
about the plight of bees
who work in sweatshops.
You wanna know about bee law.
Now there is such a thing as bee law?
Well, not exactly, but
there is a body of law
that deals with injury or damage
caused by wild and domesticated animals.
If you were wondering
when lawyers actually deal
with the law of wild animals,
you might actually be surprised to know
that that's in the first
year of law school.
There are large sections of
both property and tort law
that deal specifically with wild animals,
even though few lawyers, if any,
actually deal with wild
animals on a regular basis.
So let's break down this
redditor's question.
First of all, he's
claiming to be very angry
that bees steal pollen from his flowers,
which the bees then use to create nectar.
In his view, his neighbor is therefore
unreasonably enriched by beekeeping.
He's saying all this despite the real role
that bees play in
keeping us fed and happy.
What a buzz kill.
(drum music)
(eye tinkles)
Anyway, under the law,
his chances of successfully
suing for damages
over the neighbor's bees are slim to none.
If there is a local law
that makes keeping bees
on the property illegal,
then the owner of the bees might be liable
for certain acts or omissions
or regular nuisance.
If bees attacked the neighbor
and the neighbor wasn't allowed
to have bees on the
property to begin with,
then that might be negligence per se.
But obviously that isn't
the situation here.
Realistically, the man can
argue three legal theories
for a lawsuit.
Conversion, negligence,
and strict liability.
So let's start with conversion.
The person wants to sue for theft.
That is known in civil
courts as conversion.
Conversion is when
someone does the following
without your consent.
They take property and don't return it.
They sell your property.
They make substantial
changes to the property,
such as cutting down trees.
And I'm definitely gonna get
to the cutting down tress
hypotheticals on Reddit
in just a little while
'cause you guys are crazy for tree law.
Or they damage or misuse your
property without consent.
The elements of conversion,
the things a plaintiff must
prove to win their case,
is that the person has a
legal right to the property.
That means that they own it.
The defendant intentionally interfered
with possession of the property.
And the defendant's actions
caused the plaintiff
to lose the property.
To prove conversion under these facts,
the guy who's so buzzed off about the bees
would have a tough time.
First, he'd need to show
that he has a legal right
to the property.
Let's assume that he owns the flowers.
But in step two, he may have a problem.
He needs to show that the neighbor
purposely interfered with his
possession of the flowers.
We can't know the intent of the bees
unless, of course, they are
voiced by Jerry Seinfeld.
- You like jazz?
- And if we know anything about bees,
we know that they don't
like to take direction.
- You know, I don't
think these are flowers.
- Should we tell him?
- I think he knows.
- I don't know what prompted
them to make this movie,
but it didn't exactly have a lot of buzz
for a sequel, sadly.
In our conflict, the intent that matters
is that of the neighbor.
Did he own the bees in question?
Can the man prove it?
If so, can we infer that the
beekeeper wanted the bees
to fly next door to pilfer the pollen?
And by now you see the
difficulties with this argument.
And the other element is proving damages.
Did the bees cause damage or injury
or a loss to the plaintiff?
Although the man does a
decent job or making the case,
he said that the neighbor
eventually makes money
by selling the honey.
That's also a difficult argument.
No harm was done to the flowers.
In fact, you could argue
that the plants were enhanced
by the bees' attention.
People pay good money for having
bees come to their property
to pollinate the different flowers there.
And what about his hypothetical,
"The way I see it, this is
equivalent to a person's dog
"coming to my yard to
steal balls or tools,
"and gives it back to the owner
"who then sells it for profit"?
And he has a point.
Under the law, if a person can prove
that the neighbor sent
the dog into the yard
for the purpose of stealing the tools,
he could have a claim for conversion.
In fact, in many states
there are already laws
that prohibit a predator dog
from trespassing and hurting or killing
livestock on that yard.
And there's even a common law rule
that allows people to
kill dogs if necessary
to protect the property.
You see an example of this
in the famous scene in
"To Kill a Mockingbird."
(gun fires)
But is this situation with
the bees directly analogous?
Not really.
The man has a lot to prove.
The ownership of the bees,
the intent on the part of the neighbor,
theft of something in the
natural world, like pollen,
and actual damages.
Almost all of those are
going to be a huge problem
in a claim for conversion.
So let's talk about the second
cause of action, negligence.
The legal definition of negligence
is a failure to behave
with a level of care
that someone of ordinary
prudence would have exercised
under the circumstances
where someone has a duty
to act that way.
A person of ordinary prudence is legalese
for a person who behaves appropriately.
This is called the
reasonable person standard
and, as you can guess,
it's not always easy to determine
whether a person is acting
like a reasonable average human being.
Negligent conduct may consist
of an act or a failure to act
when there is a duty to do so.
If the person doesn't
have a legal duty to act,
then they can't be negligent.
And in general people
don't have a duty to act
for the benefit of others,
unless the circumstances are such
that they give rise to a duty.
When might you have a
duty to act appropriately?
Well, driving, for example.
If you run a red light
and strike another car,
a court could find you
liable for negligence.
This is because you had a responsibility
to act in a way that poses
no danger to other motorists.
When do you not have a duty to act?
Well, a rescue, for example.
Generally, you don't have a
legal duty to rescue someone,
even if you're walking on the beach
and you see a stranger drowning.
There's just no general
duty to risk your own life
to save the life of someone else's.
So let's talk about the legal elements
to a negligence claim.
Keep in mind that the law
varies from state to state,
but most jurisdictions require a person
to prove four things to show negligence.
Number one, the existence of a legal duty
that the defendant owed to the plaintiff.
Two, the defendant's breach of that duty.
Three, plaintiff's
sufferance of an injury.
And four, proof that
the defendant's breach
caused the injury.
If an animal owner has acted reasonably
to prevent someone else
from being injured,
the plaintiff probably won't
be able to recover damages.
Now is there some negligence
claim to bee had here?
Well, maybe, but probably not.
He would have a much stronger case
if the bees stung him or caused
some damage to his property.
There aren't many
published negligence cases
involving bees or even bee stings.
Usually people aren't stung
unless the bees are provoked,
and bees exist in the wild.
But one exception was a Miami
Beach apartment building
that had a massive
beehive inside the walls.
When the property manager went
to check out the apartments,
she got stung and went to the ER.
When maintenance workers found the hive,
honey had started to drip down the walls
and through the ceiling.
Before the building owners cleaned it up,
a tenant slipped on the honey
and fell down the stairs.
This chain of events left
the apartment building owners
with several different lawsuits.
The cases eventually settled
for a combined $1.4 million.
But what's important here
is that the Miami Beach apartment building
knew they had a dangerous
situation on their hands.
The beehive had been discovered,
the building manager wound up in the ER,
and honey was literally
dripping all over the floor.
Here, the building
owners had a duty to act.
A building owner must act
as a reasonable landlord
towards the tenants.
But here they didn't do
anything about the problem.
The tenant who slipped in the honey
has a typical slip-and-fall
negligence case.
But, once again, the poster's question
doesn't quite measure up.
Nobody had a clear duty to stop the bees
from flying in the air
to a different property.
And the man can't show that
the neighbor breached a duty
unless there are other circumstances
like a law outlawing
beekeepers in the neighborhood.
And the man would have
trouble showing injury.
His plants weren't really harmed.
If anything, he got a benefit.
And since there's no injury,
there's likely no monetary damages either.
So let's talk about the third
and final cause of action.
There's one more theory to pursue.
It's called strict liability.
Strict liability is automatic liability.
That means that the defendant is liable
regardless of the defendant's intent
or what they knew or should
have known at the time.
If something happened
and that gives rise to strict liability,
you're strictly liable.
If strict liability applies,
the defendant must pay
if his or her conduct
caused the plaintiff's injuries.
So, for example, in a
products liability case,
a company who manages a defective product
that injures someone
will be liable for the
plaintiff's injuries
regardless of whether the company knew
there was some serious
or dangerous defect,
because products liability
is strict liability.
So, for example, in 2016,
Samsung's Galaxy 7
cellphone had a battery flaw
that caused them to spontaneously explode.
Class action lawsuits have been filed
on the strict liability theory
because the cellphone is a product.
Strict liability also
applies if someone creates
an abominably dangerous condition
or performs ultra-hazardous activities,
causing injury to another person.
So if you are driving a
semi-truck full of fireworks,
maintaining a nuclear power
plan, or storing dynamite,
these are the kind of
ultra-hazardous activities
that you'll be strictly
liable if someone is injured
regardless of whether you were negligent
and regardless of whether you knew
that there was a problem or not.
Some jurisdictions impose strict liability
if a pet attacks or bites someone.
So if you have a pet circus
tiger who mauls your neighbor,
you might get in trouble.
Be sure to check your local laws
before becoming the next Siegfried & Roy.
(man yelling)
States which impose strict liability
for injuries caused by animals
often make a distinction
between domesticated animals
and wild animals.
Remember I talked about what
you learn in law school?
Well, for some reason, we
spend a huge amount of time
on the law of wild animals.
A wild animal is normally
considered to be one
that is, quote, "Not by custom
"devoted to the services of mankind
"in the time and place that it is kept."
People who own wild animals
are subject to strict liability
for injury caused to persons or property
by animals in their possession.
In contrast, owners of
domesticated animals
are generally only liable
if they are negligent.
Whether an animal is wild or domesticated
varies from state to state.
Take the case of an aggressive duck.
- That's it.
No more Mr. Nice Duck.
- No, no, not that one.
This one.
A woman sued a neighbor in Oregon
after she was ambushed
by an aggressive duck.
The sketchy duck, whose
name is Lolita Rose,
allegedly had attacked people before.
The woman fell and broke her
wrist and injured her shoulder.
Oregon law applies this
strict liability rule
for injuries caused by domestic animals.
However, under Oregon law,
the owner has to be aware that the animal
has a propensity for danger.
In practice, this means
that most animals get
one free nip or bite or attack.
This is actually a common law
and you hear often about
the one-free-bite rule.
How else would a person
know that their pet duck
or cat or bat has a propensity for danger?
Well, legally, the plaintiff has to show
that the animal has injured
someone in the past.
To prove a theory of negligence,
the plaintiff must show
that the owner was negligent
or had knowledge that the
duck was quite dangerous
and that the duck had
caused the woman's injuries.
Now in the case of the duck Lolita Rose,
the plaintiff said that the duck's owner
failed to properly maintain control
of her domesticated animal,
failed to warn neighbors
about the dangerous duck
in their midst,
and failed to keep the duck
contained on her property.
She alleged both strict
liability and negligence
as theories of liability.
Now, returning to our bee dilemma,
the first question we have to answer is
whether the bees are wild or domesticated.
The law may differ on
this from state to state,
but for the sake of argument let's say
that the bees are domesticated,
since they are raised by the neighbor
for commercial purposes.
If this happened in Oregon,
there could be liability on the basis
that the neighbor knew the bees were
un-bee-lievably mean and dangerous.
But this theory of liability breaks down
because the bees didn't do
anything dangerous or hazardous,
or even mean, for that matter.
They didn't swarm the man
or attack his children
or kill his dog.
They just simply bugged him.
Now all the bees did is exactly
what bees are meant to do.
Romance the flowers.
(upbeat music)
(hoses thudding)
And we talked about this briefly,
but maybe it's actually
a boon to the neighbor
to have his flowers pollinated.
If that's the case,
it might actually be that the neighbor
who claims that the pollen was stolen
actually owes money to the neighbor.
Under a theory of quantum
meruit or promissory estoppel,
if this gave rise to a contract,
if he knew he was getting a benefit
and knew that the neighbor
would have charged him
for that service,
maybe he's the one that
owes money to his neighbor.
So my advice to the original
redditor is pretty simple.
Just ask your neighbor for a
jar of honey and let it bee.
Now if you're the type of person
that loves to get du-bee-ous
legal advice from Reddit,
you'll love the Nebula and
CuriosityStream bundle.
Because Nebula is where I put
my extended and unrated videos
as well as my bloopers.
For example, you might have noticed
a new series on this channel
called "The Case Of."
It's an animated recreation
of real true crime cases
and some of the most famous
legal trials in history,
like "The Case of the Shotgun Booby Trap"
and "The Case of the Genius
Murderers Leopold and Loeb."
You can see some of those on YouTube,
but Nebula lets me put
up my uncut versions
that I actually can't show on YouTube.
It's still LegalEagle but
now with 10% more murder.
And in fact, I'm putting up
a version of this episode
up on Nebula
that doesn't have ads
and it has all for the
bloopers from this video.
Because it can be harder on YouTube
when you're dealing
with sensitive subjects,
because the only thing scarier than murder
is getting demonetized.
Which is why my creator
friends and I teamed up
to build our own platform
where creators don't need to
worry about demonetization
and the dreaded algorithm.
It's called Nebula and we're
thrilled to be partnering
with CuriosityStream.
Nebula is a place where creators can do
what we do best, create.
It's a place where we can
both house our content ad-free
and also experiment
with new original series
that probably wouldn't work on YouTube.
And when I say that Nebula is
built by creators for creators
I really mean it.
Nebula features lots of YouTube's
top educational-ish creators,
like Thomas Frank, Knowing
Better, Hbomberguy, and TierZoo,
as well as tons of others.
We get to collaborate in ways
that wouldn't work on YouTube
and we get to work together
on Nebula exclusive videos
that will never be on YouTube.
The project is self-funded,
not backed by investors,
and we've managed to make this ad-free
with no dreaded algorithm.
So what does this have to
do with CuriosityStream?
Well, as the Internet's go-to place
for documentaries and
long-form educational content,
they love educational creators,
so they were the perfect
partner for Nebula.
And, in fact, we just worked out a deal
where if you sign up for CuriosityStream
with the link in the description,
not only will you get one
free month of CuriosityStream
but you'll also get a Nebula
subscription for free.
And to be clear, that Nebula
subscription is not a trial.
It's free for as long as you're
a CuriosityStream member,
which means that if you
sign up for CuriosityStream,
which is less than $20 a year,
not only do you get unlimited access
to CuriosityStream's massive library
of gorgeous high-budget documentaries,
but you'll also get to
enjoy the private playground
of YouTube's best educational creators
for no additional charge.
In fact, one of my favorite
CuriosityStream documentaries
is Peter Sagal's "History"
which explains how some of the
pivotal events in US history
are tied to money,
including Watergate and the Civil War.
They even have documentaries
about the secret lives of bees.
So just click on the
link in the description
to get the CuriosityStream Nebula bundle.
You get both CuriosityStream and Nebula
and you'll be supporting
creators like me directly.
Or you can go to
CuriosityStream.com/LegalEagle.
But seriously, just click on
the link in the description,
you won't be disappointed.
So, do you agree with my legal
analysis about bee paralysis?
Leave your objections in the comments,
and check out this playlist over here
with all of my other reactions
to Reddit and your favorite movies
and me explaining how
everything is just illegal.
So click on this playlist,
and I'll see you in court.
