Top Law Schools

I'm getting pretty irritated with these convoluted BARBRI questions.

Can someone explain to me why a person keeping honeybees is strictly liable for injury caused by the bees, but someone keeping pigeons is not liable for damage caused by the pigeons if reasonable care is exercised in training them?

IIRC, there was some fuzzy grey area between classifying a particular animal/insect/whatever as either wild or not. It was basically a judgment call regarding whether or not that particular animal is accepted by society as wild or not (basically, you can argue both ways). No scienter is required for wild animals, but for a "tame" animal, scienter would be required for S/L.

I don't think it's wild animals. After your dog bites one person you're strictly liable for the next because you know he can bite. Bees sting.

I suppose, yes, bees can sting. But pigeons can get spooked and lose control, flying into things and people.

I hate, hate, HATE MBE questions like this, that involve judgment calls, and could really go both ways.

amk110 wrote:I'm getting pretty irritated with these convoluted BARBRI questions.

Can someone explain to me why a person keeping honeybees is strictly liable for injury caused by the bees, but someone keeping pigeons is not liable for damage caused by the pigeons if reasonable care is exercised in training them?

Was the pigeons question about personal injury?

First, see if the question is about trespassing animals or personal injuries. If trespassing animals, then the owner is strictly liable for the damage done by them if it was reasonably foreseeable. In PI cases, see if the animal is domestic or wild. SL for injuries caused by wild animals even if kept as pets, even a toothless/old/sick one.
PI caused by normally dangerous characteristic of domestic animals does not create SL. Honeybees are domestic animals. There is no SL for injuries caused by domestic animals, unless owner has knowledge of that animal's propensities that are not common to the species.

Also, if the person was injured on owner's land, look whether he was an invitee/licensee, or a trespasser. SL for injury to trespasser only if owner was negligence.

And then there is this liability based on intentional tort grounds - vicious dogs thing.

amk110 wrote:I suppose, yes, bees can sting. But pigeons can get spooked and lose control, flying into things and people.

I hate, hate, HATE MBE questions like this, that involve judgment calls, and could really go both ways.

how many people do you know who have suffered pigeon based injuries?

jrass wrote:

amk110 wrote:I suppose, yes, bees can sting. But pigeons can get spooked and lose control, flying into things and people.

I hate, hate, HATE MBE questions like this, that involve judgment calls, and could really go both ways.

how many people do you know who have suffered pigeon based injuries?

There has to be some case of a pigeon pooping in the wrong place at the wrong time. And city pigeons are very bold, I could see an offensive touching situation


To OP -- I feel its incredibly easy to overthink those questions, so I understand the frustration. But, from my point of view honeybees, are always going to try to sting you....its why beekeepers have those cool outfits -- the very nature of the honeybee is to sting you, its what they do, even in the best of circumstances they are going to try to hurt you. Pigeons on the other hand are probably not on a mission in life to hurt you. And in that context strict liability for honeybees makes sense, because you can't do many workarounds to make an "animal" that is naturally dangerous any less dangerous. Since a bee owner could act responsibly and a person could still get hurt it makes sense to shift the liability to them instead of trying to prove negligence. Shifting the risk to the person who knowingly purchased an animal that would be dangerous, even if they exercised due care, makes sense because they are on notice that no matter what, the animal is a danger. But the pigeon owner wouldn't have such notice. Pigeons aren't known for doing anything particularly dangerous to humans on a regular basis, so it wouldn't be fair to shift liability to them without a showing of negligence. The pigeon owner could probably, by exercising due care, make their pigeon far less likely to hurt anyone.

So, I went digging through my old prep materials, and I misremembered these questions. Turns out, *neither* the birds nor the bees were considered wild animals.

Also don't forget potential criminal liability.

JK. Just another day of Florida Man being Florida Man.

amk110 wrote:So, I went digging through my old prep materials, and I misremembered these questions. Turns out, *neither* the birds nor the bees were considered wild animals.

tats wat i sad. youd probs be liapple fore da bees knees, butt underwear different therey.

but the wild animal rule is dumb. in bangladesh they solved the tiger problem by training packs of wild dogs to work together to scare tigers away from domesticated property. this same thing could work with bears or alligators. pretty much every predator will retreat if they perceive threats coming at them from all directions, no matter how big they are or how small the dogs are. the wild animals rule precludes the dog approach from ever being adapted if needed unless if people will all give up their domesticated dogs.

There's a Delaware appellate case that considered moving bees inherently dangerous and applied strict liability. San Francisco passed a law that exempted domestic bees from strict liability. Without a statute on point bees IMHO are "wild" or "vicious." This isn't a judgment call question, the Barbri answer is just wrong.

/This question made me angry so I resurrected a thread from over a year ago. Also, that damn pigeon question...

Question re: strict liability for manufacturers (because I didn't want to make a totally new thread).

Barbri question:

Man purchases large screen plasma TV, mounts it to the ceiling, manual has instructions and illustrations on how to mount TV on different types of walls, along with all the required hardware, but contained neither instructions nor warnings regarding mounting on ceiling. Man carefully follows wall-mounting instructions and was satisfied it would hold for ceiling. However, the mounting was not appropriate for ceilings. Next night, woman comes over as a guest and is injured when TV came loose.

Will woman prevail in suit against company that manufactured the TV? (question does not specify SL or negligence suit).

A. Yes, b/c manufacturer had duty to include warnings for all potential placements of product.

B. Yes, if manufacturer knew TV was sometimes mounted on ceilings rather than walls.


Barbri has B as the answer.

I'm really confused because I thought it was A. Under SL I thought you don't have to know specifically what the foreseeable plaintiff might do, it just has to be a reasonable use of the TV and you as the manufacturer as liable because you didn't place an adequate warning.

Barbri is saying A is wrong because the facts don't establish that the manufacturer was under a duty to include the warnings in its manual, but like isn't that the whole point of SL, you DO have to place warnings b/c the manufacturer should be aware, so it's not "IF" they knew, it's they should just know because a ceiling is a "potential placement"- that's the reason I chose A over B, and they're under a duty to place the warning because there's a "potential" of it being placed on the ceiling?

cnk1220 wrote:Question re: strict liability for manufacturers (because I didn't want to make a totally new thread).

Barbri question:

Man purchases large screen plasma TV, mounts it to the ceiling, manual has instructions and illustrations on how to mount TV on different types of walls, along with all the required hardware, but contained neither instructions nor warnings regarding mounting on ceiling. Man carefully follows wall-mounting instructions and was satisfied it would hold for ceiling. However, the mounting was not appropriate for ceilings. Next night, woman comes over as a guest and is injured when TV came loose.

Will woman prevail in suit against company that manufactured the TV? (question does not specify SL or negligence suit).

A. Yes, b/c manufacturer had duty to include warnings for all potential placements of product.

B. Yes, if manufacturer knew TV was sometimes mounted on ceilings rather than walls.


Barbri has B as the answer.

I'm really confused because I thought it was A. Under SL I thought you don't have to know specifically what the foreseeable plaintiff might do, it just has to be a reasonable use of the TV and you as the manufacturer as liable because you didn't place an adequate warning.

Barbri is saying A is wrong because the facts don't establish that the manufacturer was under a duty to include the warnings in its manual, but like isn't that the whole point of SL, you DO have to place warnings b/c the manufacturer should be aware, so it's not "IF" they knew, it's they should just know because a ceiling is a "potential placement"- that's the reason I chose A over B, and they're under a duty to place the warning because there's a "potential" of it being placed on the ceiling?

This is really about the wording of A. IIRC, a manufacturer's duty to warn extends to all foreseeable uses of the product. Under B, mounting of TVs on the ceiling is reasonably foreseeable because the manufacturer actually knows about this use. However, A doesn't speak to whether mounting TVs on the ceiling is reasonably foreseeable, and without this, A's language is overly broad to the point that it is not a correct statement of the rule.

When you think about it, this distinction makes sense - we want to hold manufacturers strictly liable for damages when they could have foreseen a use for their product(s). However, we can't expect manufacturers to be omniscient and think of everything that people might do with their products (i.e. consumers are dumb and use products in strange ways).

Got it thanks. I just thought ceiling would still be considered foreseeable for TV placement. I thought anything extremely stupid is only unforeseeable (like playing a game of catch with the TV and then it falls on someone's foot).