Law Weekly
v.
The Swarm of Murderous Bees, et al.
77 U.Va 2 (2024)
Allard, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.
Since the first human emerged from a damp cavern thousands of years ago, our species has warred with the many beasts and pests with whom we share the Earth. Most often, these wars were waged in nature—in the forest, atop a mountain, at sea. Today, we find ourselves in a very different venue: the courtroom.
Factual Background
This case comes before us after several 1Ls sued the Law Weekly in negligence for injuries sustained from bee stings while visiting their table at the Student Activities Fair. Pursuant to Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 5, the Law Weekly responded with an even pettier crossclaim against the Bees, alleging trespass, assault, conversion, and apian malpractice.
The undisputed facts of the case are as follows. Last Friday, August 30, Noah Coco ’26 and Andrew Allard ’25 hosted a table at the Student Activities Fair as agents of the Law Weekly. Out of the kindness of their hearts—and, allegedly, desperation for new writers and editors—they offered free ice cream and root beer to all students visiting their stand. The resulting abundance of sugar attracted a swarm of dozens of bees, which descended upon the Law Weekly’s table. Several students were stung, and Noah and Andrew’s presentation on the merits of writing for the Law Weekly was interrupted.[1] This case followed.
Legal Analysis
I
We begin with the 1Ls’ negligence claim. The 1Ls allege that, in offering such sugary treats, the Law Weekly breached its duty of care toward students visiting their table. Having not completed more than two weeks of torts, the 1Ls reasoned that the arrival of the Bees was reasonably foreseeable, and the Law Weekly’s failure to alert students to the risk of bee stings constitutes actionable negligence.
The Law Weekly did not dispute the allegations of negligence and instead moved to dismiss the suit, relying on this Court’s repeated holding that 1Ls always lose. See, e.g., Virginia v. Harvard L. Rev. Ass’n, 76 U.Va 4 (2023) (“1Ls must always lose.”); Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (Lake, C.J., concurring) (“1Ls may have rights when it is funnier for them to win . . . .”). In response, the 1Ls protest that some LL.M. students also visited the Law Weekly’s table.
Impressively, the 1Ls have raised an issue of first impression—we have never decided whether the rule that 1Ls must always lose extends to LL.M. students. Nevertheless, we decline to decide the issue in the instant case. As the Law Weekly correctly noted, no LL.M. students joined the litigation brought by the 1Ls, so the complaint may properly be dismissed under the existing rule. We also prefer this holding as it does not require us to re-open our Torts notes. The 1Ls’ negligence claim is accordingly dismissed.
II
We now move to the Law Weekly’s crossclaims against the Bees. Students of history will surely note that this is not the first case of human-against-bee litigation. But unlike the infamous class action suit from the film which shall remain unnamed, this time,[2] those stinging bastards are not going to win.
The Law Weekly relies on several theories of harm, including trespass, assault, conversion, and malpractice. The Bees, appearing pro se, responded “Bzzzzz bzz buzz buzz bzzzzzz bzz.” The Court was unable to identify a translator for the Bees, and accordingly allowed the Law Weekly to proceed in a quasi-ex parte proceeding. At the closing of argument, the Law Weekly moved for summary judgment on all claims. We assume, based on their angry flight patterns, that the Bees likewise moved for summary judgment.
Beginning with the trespass claim, we are unpersuaded by the Law Weekly’s arguments. Much as they may wish otherwise, the Law Weekly holds no property rights over Spies Garden, and they did not acquire one by simply propping up a folding table. The Law Weekly thus lacks standing to bring this trespass claim. Even if the Law Weekly could plausibly claim a right to exclude others from Spies Garden, the Court notes sua sponte that the Bees have a plausible “I’m not touching you” defense, as they never landed on the Law Weekly’s table. We believe that the Bees are—at best—a nuisance. Accordingly, we find in the Bees’ favor as to the Law Weekly’s trespass claim.
Secondly, turning to the alleged assault, we hold that the Bees are liable. The Law Weekly presented overwhelming evidence to support their assault claim, including testimony from the 1Ls that Andrew and Noah’s pitch for the paper became “bumbling and a little Seinfeldian” as a result of the swarming Bees. While neither Andrew nor Noah were stung by the Bees, the Court notes that the “I’m not touching you” defense does not extend to assault; the “imminent apprehension” of “harmful or offensive contact” is sufficient to sustain an assault claim. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 21. While it is unclear whether the Bees are capable of the requisite intent to support an assault claim, we take their presence before the Court as sufficient evidence of their sentience.[3] The Law Weekly’s motion for summary judgment as to the assault claim is accordingly granted.
Thirdly, we move to the conversion claim. The Law Weekly alleges that the Bees unlawfully took sugar from their snacks with the intent to regurgitate it to produce honey. While we believe that the Law Weekly has sufficiently alleged the elements of a conversion claim, the Court notes—again sua sponte—that bees collectively hold an easement by prescription against humanity for the use of their sugar in honey production. Bees have been at it since at least 7,000 B.C. See Honey Ass’n, A Brief History of Honey (accessed Sep. 2, 2024). We believe their open and adverse collection of sugary chattels for the past few millennia is sufficient to overcome the Law Weekly’s conversion claim.
Lastly, we examine the Law Weekly’s claim for apian malpractice. Actually, no we don’t. Seriously? They’re bees. They like sugar. It’s what they do. Be glad they didn’t sting you.
The 1Ls’ claims are accordingly DISMISSED, and the Law Weekly’s claims are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will hear arguments as to damages in a subsequent hearing to be scheduled. So ordered.
---