JOHNSON V. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION COOPERATIVE OIL CO.
817 N.W. 2d 693 (2012)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Paynesville (D) appealed a judgment for Johnson (P) on P's suit for
trespass, nuisance, and negligence per se based on the D's allowing pesticides to drift onto
P's organic fields.
FACTS: P filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), alleging
that D had contaminated one of their transitional soybean fields through pesticide drift.
After receiving the results of the chemical testing, the MDA informed the parties that test
results revealed that the chemical dicamba was present, but below detection levels. The MDA
also reported that the chemicals diflufenzopyr and glyphosate were not present. The MDA
concluded that 'it cannot be proven if the detections were from drift.' The MDA still
required that P plow down a small portion of the soybeans growing in the field because of
'the presence of dicamba' and based on the 'visual damage' observed to this crop. Ps
destroyed approximately 10 acres of their soybean crop. P took the transitional soybean
field back to the beginning of the 3-year transition process. P did not market soybeans
harvested from this field as organic for an additional 3 years. P reported another incident
of alleged contamination and chemical testing revealed the presence, at minimal levels, of
chloropyrifos, the active ingredient in another pesticide, Lorsban Advanced. The MDA
concluded that drift from the D's spraying caused both of the positive test results. Ps took
the affected alfalfa field out of organic production for an additional 3 years. P sued D
alleging trespass, nuisance, negligence per se, and battery. They sought damages and a
permanent injunction prohibiting D from spraying pesticides within a half mile. D moved for
summary judgment, and P moved to amend their complaint to include claims based on the two
2008 incidents and a claim for punitive damages. The district court concluded that the
trespass claim failed as a matter of law because Minnesota does not recognize trespass by
particulate matter. It concluded that the negligence per se and nuisance claims failed as a
matter of law because P lacked evidence of damages. There was no evidence that any chemical
on the P's crops exceeded the 5 percent tolerance level in 7 C.F.R. 205.671; thus P could
have sold their crops as organic and therefore did not prove damages. The court of appeals
reversed and remanded. It held that pesticide drift 'can interfere with possession' and
therefore 'a trespass action can arise from a chemical pesticide being deposited in
[discernible] and consequential amounts. The court of appeals held that the phrase 'applied
to it' in section 205.202(b) included situations in which pesticides unintentionally came
into contact with organic fields. The court reasoned that the presence of any amount of
pesticide on the Johnsons' fields rendered P noncompliant with 7 C.F.R. 205.202(b), and
therefore damages were proven. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment