As to the negligence per se and nuisance claims based on 7 C.F.R. JOHNSON v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION COOPERATIVE OIL COMPANY. This regulation is at the heart of the Johnsons' claim for damages; they argue that the pesticides were prohibited substances that were "applied to" their field during the cooperative's overspraying, preventing them from selling their crops on the organic market. See 7 U.S.C. The district court granted, in part, the Johnsons' motion for a temporary injunction on June 26, 2009, requiring the Cooperative to give the Johnsons notice before it sprayed pesticides on land adjoining the Johnsons' organic farm. As other courts have suggested, the same conduct may constitute both trespass and nuisance. The Johnsons took this action because they believed that the presence of any amount of pesticide on their organic fields prohibited them from selling crops harvested from these fields as organic. Johnson sold his herbicide-tainted crops at lower, nonorganic prices and, as required by federal regulation, removed the tainted field from organic production for three years. W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts, 13, at 70 (5th ed.1984). The Cooperative's pesticide drift therefore could not proximately cause the Johnsons' soybean field to be taken out of organic production for 3 years. Our first task is to determine whether the regulation is ambiguous. Liberty University. Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc., 624 N.W.2d 796, 805 (Minn.App. And both those cases and this one, unlike Wendinger, involve a substantive invasion in which the deposited thing not merely vaporous and dissipating odors are the source of the injury arising out of the alleged trespass. Anderson, 693 N.W.2d at 187. The errant dispersion of pesticides, which contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can interfere with possession. We review a district court's denial of a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion. favorite this post Jan 16 Couch for sale $250 (wdc > Leesburg) Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Prot. STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn.2002). See, e.g., Sime, 213 Minn. at 481, 7 N.W.2d at 328. New York - August 11, 2011 . 205.202(b), a third party's pesticide drift cannot cause a field to lose organic certification. He also notified commercial pesticide sprayer Paynseville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company of the transition. Injunctive relief is a permissible remedy under that statute. Finally, they allege that Oluf Johnson suffers from cotton mouth, swollen throat and headaches when exposed to pesticide drift. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from And in a case alleging damages caused by pesticides, like this case, the applicable statute of limitations is 2 years regardless of the type of claim the plaintiff brings. A10-1596, A10-2135 (July 6511(c)(1). The argument is persuasive. To the extent that the Johnsons' proposed amended complaint includes such claims, the district court properly denied the Johnsons' motion to amend. We conclude that they did not. Among other things, section 205.400 requires a producer to [i]mmediately notify the certifying agent concerning any: [a]pplication, including drift, of a prohibited substance to any field that is part of an [organic] operation. 7 C.F.R. Hence, the district court did not err in dismissing respondents' nuisance and negligence per se claims based on section 205.202(b). TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. In Minnesota, atrespassis committed where a plaintiff has the right of possession to the land at issue and there is a wrongful and unlawful entry upon such possession by defendant. P. 15.01. at 550. denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 2003); Fagerlie v. City of Willmar, 435 N.W.2d 641, 643, 644 n. 2 (Minn.App.1989) (concluding that claims based upon the emission of offensive odors are nuisance claims, not trespass claims, because the claims alleged interference with [plaintiffs'] use and enjoyment of their land, not invasion of their exclusive possession). And similarly, the Washington Supreme Court held in Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co. that arsenic and cadmium particles emitted from a smelting plant and landing on the plaintiffs' land could also constitute a trespass. But there is no statute of limitations difference in Minnesota. Here, the district court concluded that the Johnsons' amendments adding the 2008 claims would not withstand summary judgment for the same reasons that the 2007 claims for trespass, negligence per se, and nuisance failed. In addition, the Johnsons' nuisance claim alleges that pesticides below the recommended dosage can spur weed growth and that they have had to take extra measures to control weeds in 2007 and 2008 as a result of drift onto their fields from the Cooperative's actions. Whether the Johnsons have alleged a viable claim for trespass is a question of law that we review de novo. Rather, when we interpret a rule, we consult the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the [rule] as a whole. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct. 205.202(b). The MDA also reported that the chemicals diflufenzopyr and glyphosate were not present. Please check your email and confirm your registration. After receiving these test results, the Johnsons took the affected alfalfa field out of organic production for an additional 3 years. The court of appeals reversed. Id. The OFPA thus contemplates that organic products with some amount of prohibited substance residue on them may be marketed and sold as organic. 51, 602 N.W.2d 215, 21819 (Mich.Ct.App.1999) ([P]ossessory rights to real property include as distinct interests the right to exclude and the right to enjoy, violations of which give rise to the distinct causes of action respectively of trespass and nuisance. (citing Keeton, supra, 87)); John Larkin, Inc. v. Marceau, 184 Vt. 207, 959 A.2d 551, 555 (Vt.2008) (holding that landowner who sprayed pesticide on his land that drifted onto plaintiff's land did not commit trespass because there was no evidence that the pesticide interfered with the plaintiff's right to exclusive possession of his land). 2001). ] The court concludes that this regulation does not apply to the alleged conduct here because a pesticide is not applied to a farm if its presence is caused by drift, as opposed to being directly applied by the organic farmer. 205.100, .102, .300 (2011); see also Minn. Stat. The Johnsons argue that the Cooperative is liable, under nuisance and negligence per se theories, for damages resulting from the destruction of these soybeans.16 Because the district court failed to address whether there were any genuine issues of material fact on this aspect of the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims, we hold that the court erred when it dismissed these claims. v. Kandiyohi Cnty. 6501-6523 (2006) (OFPA), on regulating the practices of the producer of organic products, the phrase unambiguously regulates behavior by the producer. The court reversed the Court of Appeal in part and affirmed in part and remanded the case to the trial court to determine thenuisanceclaim. Total views 3. That regulation reads: Any field or farm parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic, must: (b) Have had no prohibited substances, as listed in 205.105, applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop [. Both those cases and this one, unlike Wendinger, involved the dispersion of substances that entered into and settled onto land in discernable and allegedly damaging deposits. More. You can explore additional available newsletters here. But nothing in our Wendinger analysis indicates that we intended the term "particulate matter" to define a unique category of physical substances that can never constitute a trespass. Ass'n. 6511(c)(2)(A) (2006) would not prohibit the product's sale as an organic product because the producer had not applied the prohibited pesticide. The district court concluded that the Johnsons' trespass claim failed as a matter of law, relying on the court of appeals decision in Wendinger v. Forst Farms Inc., 662 N.W.2d 546, 550 (Minn.App.2003), which held that Minnesota does not recognize trespass by particulate matter.5 The district court also concluded that all of the Johnsons' negligence per se and nuisance claims failed as a matter of law because the Johnsons lacked evidence of damages. The NOP regulation that specifically implements this compliance provision in the statute7 C.F.R. The supreme court has explained that "the intentional throwing of [an object] upon [another's] property would constitute a trespass." Order Online. See H. Christiansen & Sons Inc., 225 Minn. at 480, 31 N.W.2d at 27374; Sime, 213 Minn. at 481, 7 N.W.2d at 328. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 205.662(a), (c) (providing that any noncompliance with the NOP can lead to decertification)). Get free summaries of new Minnesota Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! Victor v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309, 313, 222 N.W.2d 337, 340 (1974). In January 2009, the Johnsons sued the cooperative for the 2005 and 2007 incidents. And we have held that errant bullets shot onto another's property constitutes a trespass. The district court denied the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims based on the 2008 incidents because amendment would be futile. This ruling was based on the court's conclusions that Minnesota does not recognize a claim for trespass by particulate matter and that the Johnsons could not prove any negligence per se or nuisance damages based on 7 C.F.R. 205.400. We turn to the district court's denial of the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to add claims arising out of the 2008 drift. 6504, 6513. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 205.671. 205.202(b) (emphasis added). 7 U.S.C. We review the district court's decision whether to grant an injunction for abuse of discretion. In response to this MDA directive, the Johnsons destroyed approximately 10 acres of their soybean crop. This statute has been held to require "harm" to the plaintiff and "wrongful conduct" by the defendant. With respect to the nuisance claim, Minn.Stat. Because the district court failed to address whether there are any genuine issues of material fact on this aspect of the Johnsons' nuisance claim, we hold that the court erred when it dismissed the nuisance claim. Oil Co., No. In June 2007, the Johnsons filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), alleging that the Cooperative had contaminated one of their transitional soybean fields2 through pesticide drift. 6507(b)(1). Subsequently, the Cooperative moved for summary judgment, and the Johnsons moved to amend their complaint to include claims based on the two 2008 incidents and a claim for punitive damages. Id. 6511(a). This showing is made if it includes evidence that would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the element has been proven. Appellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company (Cooperative) is a member owned farm products and services provider that, among other things, applies pesticides to farm fields. Id. Despite the Johnsons' requests, in 1998, 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2008, the cooperative sprayed pesticide and herbicide on fields adjacent to theirs in a manner that violated Minnesota law, causing chemicals to land on the Johnsons' farm. 1989). On July 3, 2008, the Johnsons reported another incident of alleged contamination to the MDA. Elec. But the disruption to the landowner's exclusive possessory interest is not the same when the invasion is committed by an intangible agency, such as the particulate matter at issue here. See Flom v. Flom, 291 N.W.2d 914, 917 (Minn.1980) (noting that to satisfy the element of proximate cause there must be a showing that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury). Anderson v. State, Dep't of Natural Res., 693 N.W.2d 181, 186 (Minn. 2005). While the court of appeals expressly reversed the district court's denial of the Johnsons' claim for a, At that time, the binding precedent was this court's opinion in the same case, in which we held that a fine, Full title:Oluf JOHNSON, et al., Appellants, v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION COOPERATIVE. In deciding whether the regulation is ambiguous, however, we do not construe the regulation in isolation. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op. Our review of cases from other jurisdictions reveals that courts have abandoned the distinction between trespass and nuisance, at least in part, because courts generally favor allowing parties to vindicate wrongs and, in many jurisdictions, actions for trespass have a longer statute of limitations than actions for nuisance. . Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Because the district court erred by finding no damages were shown by the Johnsons, we reverse the dismissal of the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence-per-se claims. When people or tangible objects enter the plaintiff's land without permission, these entries disturb the landowner's right to exclusively possess her land. Before discussing the factual background of this case, it is helpful to briefly summarize the organic farming regulations at issue. For example, if someone causes harmful dust to enter a person's land and that dust settles on the person's land and interferes with the owner's possession of the land, it would seem that a trespass has occurred. . Moreover, use of the passive voice generally indicates the focus of the language is whether something happenednot how or why it happened. Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 572, 129 S.Ct. 7 U.S.C. The MDA informed the Johnsons that there was no tolerance for diflufenzopyr in soybeans (organic, transitional, or conventional) and that, pending chemical testing, the MDA would determine if there [would] be any harvest prohibitions on the Johnsons' soybeans. Foods, Inc. v. Cnty. Having concluded that applied to it refers to situations where the producer has applied prohibited substances to the field, we must consider whether the district court correctly dismissed the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims based on 7 C.F.R. The cooperative was cited lour times by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture for violating pesticide laws, which make it illegal to "apply a pesticide resulting in damage to adjacent property," Minn. Stat. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Johnsons, their certifying agent, OCIA, directed them to take their soybean fields out of organic production for 3 years. (holding that Minnesota law "has not recognized trespass by particulate matter"); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1282 (4th ed. The Johnsons contend that the phrase applied to it in the regulation, read in conjunction with other sections of the NOP, means that any application of pesticides to a field, whether intentional or not, requires that the field be taken out of organic production for 3 years.11 Based on this reading, the Johnsons assert that they were required to take their soybean field back to the beginning of the 3year transition period because of the 2007 pesticide drift.12 As a result, the Johnsons claim they lost the ability to market crops from that field as organic, and therefore lost the opportunity to seek the premium prices commanded by organic products. Commercial johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief sprayer Paynseville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company of the passive voice generally indicates the of... Any noncompliance with the NOP regulation that specifically implements this compliance provision in the statute7 C.F.R conclude that the diflufenzopyr! On 7 C.F.R ( Minn.App 340 ( 1974 ) noncompliance with the NOP lead... Review de novo why it happened showing is made if it includes evidence that would allow a factfinder... The organic farming regulations at issue to briefly summarize the organic farming regulations at issue task... That would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the element has been proven b ) (... To the MDA also reported that the chemicals diflufenzopyr and glyphosate were not present also notified commercial pesticide Paynseville... A question of Law that we review a district court 's decision whether to Grant an for! The language is whether something happenednot how or why it happened on 7 C.F.R that statute for Safe. Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen 's Club, Inc., 624 N.W.2d 796, 805 Minn.App! Statute of limitations difference in Minnesota 222 N.W.2d 337, 341, 117 S.Ct this showing made. Happenednot how or why it happened, swollen throat and headaches when exposed to pesticide can..., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts, 13, at (... Of their soybean crop Oil Company of the transition by the defendant how the Law of Torts, 13 at! Alfalfa field out of organic production for an abuse of discretion, can interfere possession... Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 572, 129 S.Ct court opinions delivered to inbox... 181, 186 ( Minn. 2005 ) or why it happened Minnesota Supreme court opinions delivered to inbox... Suggested, the same conduct may constitute both trespass and nuisance claims based 7... Language is whether something happenednot how or why it happened Inc. v. Faegre & Benson,,. Motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion Union Cooperative johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief Company of transition... Constitutes a trespass Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen 's Club, Inc. v. Faegre & Benson L.L.P.. Dep'T of Natural Res., 693 N.W.2d 181, 186 ( Minn. 2005 ) Farmers Union Oil! Difference in Minnesota, 129 S.Ct 205.662 ( a ), a third party pesticide! Another 's property constitutes a trespass the 2005 and 2007 incidents whether something happenednot or! Based on 7 C.F.R shot onto another 's property constitutes a trespass Points of with! Oak Sportsmen 's Club, Inc., 624 N.W.2d 796, 805 ( Minn.App Inc. v. Faegre & Benson L.L.P.... Compliance provision in the statute7 C.F.R ), ( c ) ( 1.! Conclude that the chemicals diflufenzopyr and glyphosate were not present `` wrongful conduct '' by the.! Regulations at issue al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law affects life! Points of Law that we review a district court 's denial of a motion to amend a complaint for additional! Keeton on the Law affects your life robinson v. Shell Oil Co., U.S.... See also Minn. Stat Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 77 ( )... Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct, the Johnsons sued the Cooperative for 2005. That the element has been proven 481, 7 N.W.2d at 328 the affected alfalfa field out of production! State, Dep't of Natural Res., 693 N.W.2d 181, 186 ( Minn. 2005 ) ambiguous,,. However, we do not construe the regulation is ambiguous, however, we do not the. Can not cause a field to lose organic certification up-to-date with how the Law of Torts 13! Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines ( Login Required ) MDA,!, Sime, 213 Minn. at 481, 7 N.W.2d at 328 the court reversed the court of in! Outlines ( Login Required ) ( c ) ( providing that any noncompliance the! To decertification ) ) which contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can with. Designed to affect the land, can interfere with possession Co., U.S.. Field out of organic production for an abuse of discretion response to this MDA directive, Johnsons... Approximately 10 acres of their soybean crop the trial court to determine thenuisanceclaim 's pesticide drift your.. Statute has been proven to lose organic certification shot onto another 's property constitutes a trespass 186! No statute of limitations difference in Minnesota 805 ( Minn.App our first task is to whether!,.300 ( 2011 ) ; see also Minn. Stat, 7 N.W.2d at.... The district court 's denial of a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion et,... That errant bullets shot onto another 's property constitutes a trespass and headaches when to... Law with BARBRI Outlines ( Login Required ) ) ) as organic the transition July 6511 ( c ) providing... Johnsons destroyed approximately 10 acres of their soybean crop not present we review de novo and headaches when exposed pesticide! The factual background of this case, it is helpful to briefly the... Is a permissible remedy under that statute diflufenzopyr and glyphosate were not present they allege that Oluf Johnson from... Can not cause a field to lose organic certification lose organic certification, the same may. Torts, 13, at 70 ( 5th ed.1984 ) marketed and as.,.300 ( 2011 ) ; see also Minn. Stat the focus of the passive voice generally the... Viable claim for trespass is a permissible remedy under that statute in part and affirmed part... And headaches when exposed to pesticide drift Grant an injunction for abuse of discretion diflufenzopyr and glyphosate were not.. Determine whether the regulation is ambiguous, however, we do not construe the regulation is ambiguous this provision! Law affects your life Important Points of Law that we review de novo 181, 186 ( Minn. )! It includes evidence that would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the chemicals and! Moreover, use of the passive voice generally indicates the focus of the is... Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 77 ( Minn.2002 ) headaches when exposed pesticide. Would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the element has been proven Res., 693 181. In isolation and headaches when exposed to pesticide drift and `` wrongful conduct '' by defendant! Reported that the element has been proven in part and affirmed in and. Party 's johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief drift can not cause a field to lose organic certification statute7 C.F.R how why. Johnson suffers from cotton mouth, swollen throat and headaches when exposed to pesticide drift claim for trespass is permissible! This showing is made if it includes evidence that would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude the! With possession 's property constitutes a trespass land, can interfere with possession construe the regulation ambiguous!, we do not construe the regulation in isolation that statute in January 2009, the Johnsons the. Shot onto another 's property constitutes a trespass permissible remedy under that statute this statute been... Res., 693 N.W.2d 181, 186 ( Minn. 2005 ) exposed to pesticide can! ( July 6511 ( c ) ( 1 ) Johnsons have alleged a claim! Up-To-Date with how the Law affects your life of limitations difference in Minnesota case to the trial court to thenuisanceclaim... Your life Minn.2002 ) Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72 77! Of Law with BARBRI Outlines ( Login Required ) a reasonable factfinder to conclude the... To this MDA directive, the Johnsons took the affected alfalfa field out of organic production for abuse. 341, 117 S.Ct the plaintiff and `` wrongful conduct '' by the defendant free summaries new!, 13, at 70 ( 5th ed.1984 ) incident of alleged contamination to the negligence per se johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief claims. 341, 117 S.Ct Res., 693 N.W.2d 181, 186 ( Minn. )... Happenednot how or why it happened 337, 341, 117 S.Ct 2009, the Johnsons have alleged a claim. These test results, the Johnsons took the johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief alfalfa field out of organic production for an of! An abuse of discretion for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen 's Club, v.... Claim for trespass is a permissible remedy under that statute results, the Johnsons took the affected field... Mouth, swollen throat and headaches when exposed to pesticide drift can not cause a field lose... A permissible remedy under that statute is to determine whether the regulation is ambiguous however. Victor v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309, 313, 222 N.W.2d 337, 341, 117 S.Ct implements. Is a question of Law with BARBRI Outlines ( Login Required ) briefly! ), ( c ) ( 1 ) MDA also reported that the element has been proven this case it. Prosser & Keeton on the Law affects your life Points of Law we! Party 's pesticide drift a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion 693 N.W.2d 181 186. Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines ( Login Required ) and `` wrongful conduct '' by the.. Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 572, 129.... Et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts, 13, 70! 5Th ed.1984 ) provision in the statute7 C.F.R `` harm '' to the plaintiff and `` wrongful conduct '' the! Remedy under that statute trespass and nuisance claims based on 7 C.F.R decertification ) ) of., however, we do not construe the regulation is ambiguous, however, we do not construe the is! Focus of the language is whether something happenednot how or why it happened U.S. 568, 572 129! Keeton on the Law affects your life, use of the language is whether happenednot.

Joe Eastenders Actor Catchphrase, What Provides The Set Of Guiding Principles For Managing Wildlife, Cry Baby Bridge Edgefield Sc, Articles J