Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Landowner Liability

Duty of Care In Pesticide Application Owed to
Trespassing Honeybees

Harrison M. Pittman
Research Assistant Professor of Law

In Anderson v. State of Minnesota, Dep't of Natural Res., 693 N.W.2d 181 (2005), the Supreme Court of Minnesota held that a land possessor who has actual knowledge or notice of the presence of commercial honey bees on its property has a duty to use reasonable care in the application of pesticides. The plaintiffs were commercial beekeepers who maintained beehives on property that was adjacent to properties either owned or managed by the defendants. Anderson, 693 N.W.2d at 185. The plaintiffs brought an action for nuisance, trespass, and negligence against the defendants, arguing that the defendants' application of pesticides destroyed and injured a significant number of the plaintiffs' bees. See id. The court explained that under Minnesota law, once a landowner discovers the presence of trespassing animals it is "'bound to reasonable care to avoid injuring them.'" Id. at 187. It also explained that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136y, preempts some state law claims, such as breach of warranty and failure to warn, but does not preempt other negligence-based state law claims. Id. (citations and explanations omitted). The court concluded that "[g]iven this background and the land possessor's general duty to use property in a way that does not injure others, it seems to use that the beekeepers common law action for alleged loss of the bees on . . . [defendants'] land is a viable one." Id. at 188.

The case was decided on March 3, 2005; this summary was posted May 25, 2005.