It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: stirling
What would say your liability be should some child be stung perhaps even attacked by several of these brutes....(don't they carry rattlesnake toxin?)
Enough stings could be fatal to an allergenic person perhaps.....
Just asking since the neighbours have stepped in to bitch already.......
We are getting some pressure from our neighbours to kill them but we are reluctant to do so as nobody or any pets have been stung yet.
No need to kill of a beneficial wasp colony that controls the local insect population.
We are concerned about the neighbours and pedestrians that are out front of our home, the nest is only about 20 feet from a well walked road.
Although severe allergic reactions are not that common, they can lead to shock, cardiac arrest, and unconsciousness in 10 minutes or less. This type of reaction can occur within minutes after a sting and can be fatal. Get emergency treatment as soon as possible.
originally posted by: Iwinder
We have no idea if there is liability at all regarding bee's nest's I know they are everywhere around the world.
It's akin to trying to control ants I think its impossible in that aspect.
[W]hen plaintiff turned on a shower, a number of bees came from the direction of the
shower head, stinging him, causing him to slip in the tub and break his wrist. After this,
a beekeeper was called to, and in fact did, remove a beehive. The court found that
defendants breached their duty, both in failing to remove the bees and in failing to warn
plaintiff... [W]here plaintiff, employed by defendants at their residence as a house
painter, sustained injuries while fleeing a swarm of bees disturbed by defendant's
spraying in an enclosed basement area where he had been directed to store his paints,
the court held that viable causes of action in negligence... existed... [W]here plaintiffemployee
had warned his employers that a large concentration of bees in the grass and
brush of the railroad tracks made it unsafe, defendants had a duty to trim the brush and
undergrowth; having failed to do so, the railroad was held liable when plaintiff was
subsequently stung while working in the area.
a reply to: Domo1
You realize your "that guy" now. I think your decision is painfully stupid. If someone gets stung I imagine you will be sued. You're taking a lot of risks for very little reward here. I really can't get over that you're reluctant to do something until someone is stung.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Iwinder
We have no idea if there is liability at all regarding bee's nest's I know they are everywhere around the world.
It's akin to trying to control ants I think its impossible in that aspect.
There's legal precidence that says you're wrong...
cehdclass.gmu.edu...
[W]hen plaintiff turned on a shower, a number of bees came from the direction of the
shower head, stinging him, causing him to slip in the tub and break his wrist. After this,
a beekeeper was called to, and in fact did, remove a beehive. The court found that
defendants breached their duty, both in failing to remove the bees and in failing to warn
plaintiff... [W]here plaintiff, employed by defendants at their residence as a house
painter, sustained injuries while fleeing a swarm of bees disturbed by defendant's
spraying in an enclosed basement area where he had been directed to store his paints,
the court held that viable causes of action in negligence... existed... [W]here plaintiffemployee
had warned his employers that a large concentration of bees in the grass and
brush of the railroad tracks made it unsafe, defendants had a duty to trim the brush and
undergrowth; having failed to do so, the railroad was held liable when plaintiff was
subsequently stung while working in the area.
In other words, once a neighbor pointed out the problem, you became legally culpable if you failed to correct it.
originally posted by: Iwinder
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Iwinder
We have no idea if there is liability at all regarding bee's nest's I know they are everywhere around the world.
It's akin to trying to control ants I think its impossible in that aspect.
There's legal precidence that says you're wrong...
cehdclass.gmu.edu...
[W]hen plaintiff turned on a shower, a number of bees came from the direction of the
shower head, stinging him, causing him to slip in the tub and break his wrist. After this,
a beekeeper was called to, and in fact did, remove a beehive. The court found that
defendants breached their duty, both in failing to remove the bees and in failing to warn
plaintiff... [W]here plaintiff, employed by defendants at their residence as a house
painter, sustained injuries while fleeing a swarm of bees disturbed by defendant's
spraying in an enclosed basement area where he had been directed to store his paints,
the court held that viable causes of action in negligence... existed... [W]here plaintiffemployee
had warned his employers that a large concentration of bees in the grass and
brush of the railroad tracks made it unsafe, defendants had a duty to trim the brush and
undergrowth; having failed to do so, the railroad was held liable when plaintiff was
subsequently stung while working in the area.
In other words, once a neighbor pointed out the problem, you became legally culpable if you failed to correct it.
That is very interesting, maybe we are in for a problem and then again maybe not......I for one believe that if we get sued for a bees nest in our front tree then the end is near for humanity.
The question is......
"In other words, once a neighbor pointed out the problem, you became legally culpable if you failed to correct it"
Is there a problem when nothing has happened?
I can point to my neighbours Oak tree, its massive by the way.....and say that is a problem down the road.
Can I sue when we all know trees die sooner or later and bees sting sooner or later and the sun rises sooner or later?
Regards, Iwinder
Is there a problem when nothing has happened?
originally posted by: wdkirk
Put on protective gear/suit, get a large trash can and fill it with water, put it under the nest, clip the nest at the top and let it fall into the water. Put the lid that came with the trash can on the trash can. Duct tape is handy to keep it sealed. Drowned wasps in a short period of time. Problem solved. It's Miller Time.
These wasps are cyclical. They die out every year leaving a queen or three to restart the colony. She/they could decide to move to the Hamptons and be gone for good.
Call a professional. Have them killed. Humans and bugs don't mix well at parties.
originally posted by: Danbones
a reply to: Iwinder
now, if a burghler was to get stung breaking in...
then you do have to drown that sucker in the garbage can
because if you don't:
then you will get sued and lose
sad to say
originally posted by: wdkirk
originally posted by: Iwinder
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Iwinder
We have no idea if there is liability at all regarding bee's nest's I know they are everywhere around the world.
It's akin to trying to control ants I think its impossible in that aspect.
There's legal precidence that says you're wrong...
cehdclass.gmu.edu...
[W]hen plaintiff turned on a shower, a number of bees came from the direction of the
shower head, stinging him, causing him to slip in the tub and break his wrist. After this,
a beekeeper was called to, and in fact did, remove a beehive. The court found that
defendants breached their duty, both in failing to remove the bees and in failing to warn
plaintiff... [W]here plaintiff, employed by defendants at their residence as a house
painter, sustained injuries while fleeing a swarm of bees disturbed by defendant's
spraying in an enclosed basement area where he had been directed to store his paints,
the court held that viable causes of action in negligence... existed... [W]here plaintiffemployee
had warned his employers that a large concentration of bees in the grass and
brush of the railroad tracks made it unsafe, defendants had a duty to trim the brush and
undergrowth; having failed to do so, the railroad was held liable when plaintiff was
subsequently stung while working in the area.
In other words, once a neighbor pointed out the problem, you became legally culpable if you failed to correct it.
That is very interesting, maybe we are in for a problem and then again maybe not......I for one believe that if we get sued for a bees nest in our front tree then the end is near for humanity.
The question is......
"In other words, once a neighbor pointed out the problem, you became legally culpable if you failed to correct it"
Is there a problem when nothing has happened?
I can point to my neighbours Oak tree, its massive by the way.....and say that is a problem down the road.
Can I sue when we all know trees die sooner or later and bees sting sooner or later and the sun rises sooner or later?
Regards, Iwinder
A lawyer would say "yes" and gladly bill you for his/her time.
a reply to: wdkirk
A lawyer would say "yes" and gladly bill you for his/her time.
a reply to: Domo1
If this was property far away from anyone I would say leave the thing up. You're taking a very large financial risk, not to mention risking having someone hurt.