Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision There is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings of negligence based on appellant’s failure to warn of the dangerousness of bees. FACTS:Santos Flores Sr. died from anaphylactic shock triggered by a bee sting. The appellees, Flores’ estate and his four adult children, sued the appellant, Curtis Wilhelm, and other parties. A jury found the appellant liable for Flores’s death. John Black operated a honeybee business. On Sept. 7, 1994, Black and his employee, Alejandro Mercado, needed help moving some beehives that Black was purchasing from appellant. Flores agreed to help and put on a protective suit provided by Black. After stopping at appellant’s house to pick up a hive, the three men went to the property where additional hives were kept. The property was located in a remote area of Willacy County, behind three locked gates and miles from a paved road. Appellant did not own the land but had permission from the landowner to keep the hives there. After the men loaded one hive onto their truck, Flores took a break and walked into the brush some yards away from the truck because he had the urge to defecate. He soon returned yelling for help and staggering. The veil on his suit was open. Flores sustained several bee stings. He suffered an anaphylactic shock reaction. Flores died before an ambulance could reach him. The appellees sued Black, Joan Walsh Reichert (Black’s business partner), and the appellant in the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County. Reichert settled before the case was submitted to the jury. The jury was given a charge on general negligence and found that the negligence of Black and appellant was the proximate cause of Flores’ death. The jury assigned 50 percent of the negligence to Black and appellant, each, and awarded compensatory damages to appellees in the amount of $1,591,000. The jury also found Black and appellant grossly negligent and assessed exemplary damages of $75,000 against each. The appellant brings this appeal from that judgment. Black does not appeal the judgment. HOLDING:Affirmed in part. The court reverses that portion of the trial court’s judgment which awards exemplary damages in the amount of $75,000 against appellant for gross negligence, and renders judgment that the appellees recover no exemplary damages. The appellant himself testified that he was an expert concerning insects, with a degree in entomology. At the time of this incident, appellant had owned beehives for about five years and was a member of the Rio Grande Valley Beekeepers Association. Appellant admitted that he has more knowledge concerning bees than the average person. Finally, appellant admitted that he knew that a certain percentage of the population is allergic to bees stings, and that most people who die from bee stings are not aware that they can suffer anaphylactic shock from the sting. It is undisputed that appellant did not provide any warning to Black or Flores concerning the dangers associated with bee stings. After considering the evidence herein and weighing the risk, foreseeability, and likelihood of injury from a bee sting against the social utility of the actor’s conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing the burden on appellant, the court holds the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s finding that appellant had a duty to warn Flores of the dangers associated with bee stings, including the danger of an adverse allergic reaction, and that appellant breached that duty. To complete a cause of action in negligence, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s negligent conduct proximately caused his injuries. The two elements of proximate cause are cause-in-fact and foreseeability. The appellant attacks the second prong of proximate cause, arguing that the risk of anaphylactic shock from a bee sting is so rare as to make it unforeseeable. An act is foreseeable if the defendant should have anticipated the dangers that its negligent act or omission created for others. Travis v. City of Mesquite, 830 S.W.2d 94 (Tex. 1992). As previously noted, expert witnesses testified that anaphylactic shock is not rare and is a potential risk for anyone who works with bees. Additionally, the appellant stated that he was aware that a certain percentage of the population could suffer from anaphylactic shock as a result of a bee sting. The court finds the evidence both factually and legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that the appellant’s failure to warn of the dangerousness of bees was a proximate cause of Flores’ injuries. The appellant’s third issue is overruled. Because the court finds sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings of negligence based on the appellant’s failure to warn of the dangerousness of bees, the court need not examine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding on any of the other allegations of negligence pled by the appellees. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Jefferson Assocs., 896 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. 1995). The appellant argues that the evidence does not support the jury’s finding of gross negligence. The appellees contend the record shows the appellant was an entomologist who knew about the risk of allergic reactions to bee stings, but took no precautions to prevent Flores from being stung. However, it is undisputed that Flores and the others moving the bee hives were wearing bee suits. Additionally, there is no evidence appellant knew Flores was allergic to bee stings. Accordingly, the court finds that there is no evidence that the appellant was consciously indifferent to Flores’s welfare and safety. The court holds that the evidence did not conclusively establish that Flores was guilty of contributory negligence. The jury’s finding that Flores was not negligent is not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. OPINION:Valdez, C.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.