Land owner has no duty to protect neighbor from wild animals
Published 05/29/08

In the case of Belhumeur v. Zilm (decided May 2, 2008), the New Hampshire Supreme Court, for the first time, clearly articulated the rule that a land owner generally has no obligation to protect a neighbor from wild animals that are present on the land owner's property.

In Belhumeur , the parties lived next door to each other. A colony of wild bees built a nest in a tree on the defendant's property. The bees flew over to the plaintiff's property and stung him. The plaintiff sued the defendant, arguing that the bees were a nuisance and the defendant had an affirmative duty to remove the bees.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that defendant was not liable for injuries caused by wild animals on the property. The Supreme Court agreed and held that since the Roman Empire , wild animals were presumed to be owned by no one. Therefore, there is no duty to protect a neighbor from the independent actions of wild animals that are neither possessed nor harbored by them.

In the Belhumeur case specifically, the Supreme Court held that the defendant had no duty to warn the plaintiff of the presence of the bees and no duty to remove the bees from the property. This analysis did not change even when the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had agreed to remove the bees in the past. The Supreme Court held that a mere promise to remove the bees did not impose an obligation upon the defendant to follow through and carry out the action.

Andrew J. Piela is an associate attorney at Hamblett & Kerrigan, P.A. His legal practice includes civil litigation, family law, land use litigation and probate. You can reach Attorney Piela by e-mail at: apiela@hamker.com

This information is general information and may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The information provided should not be relied upon as an indication of the actual state of the law or of future developments. The information contained on the Hamblett & Kerrigan website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If the information referenced may be of legal importance to you, you should consult with an attorney to provide you with legal guidance and opinion as the the effect of the current law upon your situation.