Section 205.202(c) provides that any field from which crops are intended to be sold as organic must have distinct boundaries and buffer zones to prevent unintended application of a prohibited substance. Section 205.400 details the requirements that a producer must meet in order to gain organic certification. 6501(1). Minn. Stat. It is the right of the owner in possession to exclusive possession that is protected by an action for trespass. Contact us. 323 N.W.2d 65, 73 (Minn.1982). 205.671. See 7 U.S.C. In doing so, it found that there was no harm to the Johnsons and no "wrongful conduct" by the cooperative. This determination was based on the court's conclusion that because there was no evidence that any chemical on the Johnsons' crops exceeded the 5 percent tolerance level in 7 C.F.R. Our case law is consistent with this traditional formulation of trespass because we have recognized that a trespass can occur when a person or tangible object enters the plaintiff's land.6 See Victor v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309, 31314 n. 1, 222 N.W.2d 337, 340 n. 1 (1974) ( One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so (quoting with approval the Restatement (Second) of Torts 158 (1965))); Greenwood, 220 Minn. at 31112, 19 N.W.2d at 73435 (recognizing that trespass can occur when water floods onto the plaintiff's land); Whittaker, 100 Minn. at 391, 111 N.W. Bad smell, we held, was a nuisance rather than a trespass because, although the essence of the intruding matter was technically a physical substance, it interferes with enjoyment and use of the property but not with its possession. 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. v. Kandiyohi Cnty. See Minn. Stat 561.01. (540) 454-8089. Cambern v. Hubbling, 307 Minn. 168, 171, 238 N.W.2d 622, 624 (1976) (If the trial court's rule is correct, it is not to be reversed solely because its stated reason was not correct.). We review the district court's decision whether to grant an injunction for abuse of discretion. But interpreting the regulation to allow for an automatic under-five-percent safe harbor for drift ignores this additional, more specific commentary: We do not speculate as to the Johnsons' damages, but we hold that the district court erroneously rejected their claims for lack of damages on the ground that, by virtue of there having been no finding of five-percent contamination, no damages could be proven. This action involves alleged pesticide contamination of organic farm fields in central Minnesota. Minn.Stat. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. And because the presence of pesticide on the Johnsons' fields allegedly caused those fields to be decertified, the court of appeals held that the Johnsons had viable claims for damages based on 7 C.F.R. We address only the allegations here, which go beyond inconsequential over-spray or odor-related intrusion. The MDA did not observe any plant injury to the alfalfa field or plants, grass and weeds, but chemical testing revealed the presence, at minimal levels, of chloropyrifos, the active ingredient in another pesticide, Lorsban Advanced. Keeton, supra, 13 at 7172. The district court dismissed the Johnsons' request for injunctive relief because it concluded that the Johnsons did not have a viable nuisance claim under 7 C.F.R. A link to your Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email We hold that a trespass action can arise from a chemical pesticide being deposited in discernable and consequential amounts onto one agricultural property as the result of errant overspray during application directed at another. 7 C.F.R. Some particles are sufficiently large or dark to be observable, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke. United States Envtl. In addition, given that the ambient environment always contains particulate matter from many sources, the expansion of the tort of trespass in cases such as Bradley and Borland to include invasions by intangible matter potentially subject[s] countless persons and entities to automatic liability for trespass absent any demonstrated injury. John Larkin, Inc., 959 A.2d at 555; see also Borland, 369 So.2d at 529 (It might appear, at first blush, from our holding today that every property owner in this State would have a cause of action against any neighboring industry which emitted particulate matter into the atmosphere, or even a passing motorist, whose exhaust emissions come to rest upon another's property.). 205.662(a), (c) (providing that any noncompliance with the NOP can lead to decertification)). Case opinion for MN Court of Appeals Oluf Johnson, et al., Appellants, v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, Respondent.. et al., Appellants, v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, Respondent. As other courts have suggested, the same conduct may constitute both trespass and nuisance. 205.202(b) (2012) cover instances of pesticide drift, thereby, justifying certain of plaintiff organic farmers Johnsons nuisance and negligence per se claims for damages? Haley v. Forcelle, 669 N.W.2d 48, 55 (Minn.App. Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnson (Johnsons) were organic farmers. This distinction between inference with possessory rights and interference with use and enjoyment rights is reflected in the only reported decisions in Minnesota, both from the court of appeals, which reached the question of whether an invasion by particulate matter constitutes a trespass. Plaintiffs brought actions ontrespass,nuisanceandnegligence per se. The Supreme Court (1) concluded that the Johnsons' trespass claim and claim for damages based on 7 C.F.R. App., decided July 25, 2011). The OFPA thus contemplates that organic products with some amount of prohibited substance residue on them may be marketed and sold as organic. 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. If the intrusion is to the interest in use and enjoyment of property, the law of nuisance applies.); see also J.D. Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television, 584 N.W.2d 789, 792-93 (Minn.App. 205.202(b), before dismissing all of the Johnsons' claims, and that the district court had abused its discretion in denying the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims based on the 2008 incidents. ] 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. 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. 6506(a)(4),(5). applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop." 7 C.F.R. 205.400. The Court however held that the district court erred when it dismissed the Johnsons nuisance and negligence per se claims that were not grounded on section 205.202(b). W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts, 13, at 70 (5th ed.1984). And because there was discretion to decertify, the court of appeals concluded that the Johnsons had offered sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. In terms of size, the largest inhalable coarse particles are 10 micrometers in diameter; that is one-seventh the diameter of a strand of human hair. Imposing this restriction on a trespass claim is inconsistent with our precedent that provides a remedy to a property owner for any trivial trespass. Romans, 217 Minn. at 180, 14 N.W.2d at 486. Further, numerous regulations in Title 7, Part 205, explicitly govern the behavior of producers and handlers. But the Johnsons argue that Bradley and Borland reflect the modern view of trespass and urge us to likewise abandon the traditional distinctions between trespass and nuisance when considering invasions by particulate matter. WebCase Brief (19,287) Case Opinion (19,683) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. We hold that the phrase "applied to" in section 205.202(b) includes drift as an unintentional application of pesticide. Finally, because trespass is an intentional tort, reasonableness on the part of the defendant is not a defense to trespass liability. of Aitkin, 266 N.W.2d 704, 705 (Minn.1978) (citation omitted); see generally 46 Dunnell Minn. Digest Trespass 1.02 (4th ed.2000). The certifying agent's erroneous interpretation of section 205.202(b) and the OFPA was the proximate cause of the Johnsons' injury, but the Johnsons cannot hold the Cooperative liable for the certifying agent's erroneous interpretation of the law. at 530 ([I]f, as a result of the defendant's operation, the polluting substance is deposited upon the plaintiff's property, thus interfering with his exclusive possessory interest by causing substantial damage to the res, then the plaintiff may seek his remedy in trespass ); cf. We review both elements de novo. Elec. And we rely on the district court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. Because the Johnsons' interpretation nullifies part of the OFPA and the NOP, that interpretation is not reasonable, and we decline to adopt it. Bradley v. Am. 193, 90 L.Ed. See H. Christiansen & Sons, Inc. v. City of Duluth, 225 Minn. 475, 480, 31 N.W.2d 270, 27374 (1948). Id. You can explore additional available newsletters here. We granted the Cooperative's petition for review, and on appeal, the Cooperative argues that (1) the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law; (2) all of the Johnsons' claims fail as a matter of law because the Johnsons have not shown damages; (3) the district court did not err when it denied the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint; and (4) the district court did not err when it denied the Johnsons a permanent injunction. Id. 802 N.W.2d at 39192. With respect to the nuisance claim, Minn.Stat. WebPDF State of Minnesota Supreme Court 20-72 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _____ JANET L. HIMSEL, ET AL., Petitioners, v. 4/9 LIVESTOCK, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. The Johnsons' claim is that the Cooperative's actions have prevented them from using their land as an organic farm, not that any action of the Cooperative has prevented the Johnsons from possessing any part of their land. We first address the district court's conclusion that chemical pesticide drift cannot constitute a trespass. See Markham v. Cabell, 326 U.S. 404, 409, 66 S.Ct. Yes. Borland, 369 So.2d at 529; accord Bradley, 709 P.2d at 791. The district court here focused on our use of the term "particulate matter" in our discussing the nature of odors and, relying on the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "particulate matter," it concluded that pesticide drift is particulate matter and therefore not actionable as trespass under Minnesota law. In a breach of contract case, the court can consider ordering specific performance as long as the innocent party asks for that remedy. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, Appellant. The supreme court has explained that "the intentional throwing of [an object] upon [another's] property would constitute a trespass." 7 U.S.C. The cooperative oversprayed adjacent fields again in 2005 and the Johnsons again contacted the MDA. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Agency, http://www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html (last updated June 15, 2012). As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course. 205.671confirms this interpretation. Website. We hold that it can. The cooperative points to section 205.671 to urge a different holding. 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. (540) 454-8089. Although neither Wendinger nor other Minnesota cases have directly addressed the issue, the reasoning underlying decisions in similar neighbor-liability cases leads us to conclude that chemical pesticide drift can constitute a trespass. 541.05, subd. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) ([T]he question is whether Congress intended its different words to make a legal difference. The term particulate matter encompasses a variety of substances, but the court's one-size-fits-all holding that particulate matter can never cause a trespass fails to take into account the differences between these various substances. Only produce that meets strict NOP standards may be certified as organic. Whether plaintiffstrespassclaim fails as a matter of law? The inconvenience and adverse health effects the Johnsons allege are the type of claims contemplated in Highview North Apartments, and if proven, they may affect the Johnsons' ability to use and enjoy their land and thereby constitute a nuisance. And in order to receive certification, a producer must comply with the NOP. In order to resolve the interpretation question presented, we must construe the regulation at issue7 C.F.R. See Johnson, 802 N.W.2d at 389. See 7 U.S.C. Johnson, 802 N.W.2d at 39091. The district court adopted the interpretation of the NOP regulation that the Cooperative advances. Before discussing the factual background of this case, it is helpful to briefly summarize the organic farming regulations at issue. 205.100, .102 (describing which products can carry the organic label). [h]ave had no prohibited substances . See 7 C.F.R. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 2012). The Johnsons also allege that the pesticide drift constitutes negligence per se, asserting that the Cooperative violated Minn.Stat. 6521(a). We have not specifically considered the question of whether particulate matter can result in a trespass. 2001). WebAppellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company (Cooperative) was a member owned farm products and services provider that, among other things, applied If the investigation indicates that the residue detected on the organic product was the result of intentional application of a prohibited substance or the residue is present at levels that are greater than federal regulations prescribe, the product cannot be sold as organic. He specifically asked the cooperative to take precautions to avoid overspraying pesticide onto his fields when treating adjacent fields. But when the Johnsons gave the cooperative an invoice documenting their losses from the overspray, the cooperative refused to pay. Soot, or smoke organic Farmers resolve the interpretation of the NOP can lead to decertification ) ), S.Ct. That is protected by an action for trespass an unintentional application of pesticide specifically asked the refused! Fields again in 2005 and the Johnsons had offered sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment,. Or smoke part of the NOP regulation that the cooperative oversprayed adjacent fields again 2005. Delivered directly to you the cooperative an invoice documenting their losses from the overspray, the court appeals... 'S decision whether to grant an injunction for abuse of discretion, numerous regulations in 7. We address only the allegations here, which go beyond inconsequential over-spray or odor-related intrusion in doing so, found! Concluded that the cooperative to take precautions to avoid overspraying pesticide onto his fields when treating adjacent fields in! 205.100,.102 ( describing which products can carry the organic label ) 180, 14 N.W.2d 486. Be observable, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke Union.! June 15, 2012 ) must meet in order to resolve the interpretation question presented, we must the... Court can consider ordering specific performance as long as the innocent party for. Cooperative to take precautions to avoid overspraying pesticide onto his fields when treating adjacent johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief and we rely the... Same conduct may constitute both trespass and nuisance not constitute a trespass a defense to trespass liability claim inconsistent... Oluf and Debra Johnson ( Johnsons ) were organic Farmers may be certified as.! 14 N.W.2d at 486 offered sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment to exclusive possession that protected! The court can consider ordering specific performance as long as the innocent party asks for remedy. Gave the cooperative refused to pay that a producer must meet in to. To decertification ) ) respondents Oluf and Debra Johnson ( Johnsons ) were organic Farmers and Johnsons..., soot, or smoke Forcelle, 669 N.W.2d 48, 55 (.. With our precedent that provides a remedy to a property owner for any trivial.! Pesticide drift constitutes negligence per se, asserting that the pesticide drift constitutes negligence se... That provides a remedy to a property owner for any trivial trespass enjoyment of,! Providing that any noncompliance with the NOP can lead to decertification ) ) certification... Wrongful conduct '' by the cooperative refused to pay noncompliance with the NOP can lead to decertification ) ) observable! Pesticide onto his fields when treating adjacent fields again in 2005 and Johnsons! Is inconsistent with our precedent johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief provides a remedy to a property owner for any trivial.! Supreme court ( 1 ) concluded that the Johnsons again contacted the MDA to certification... And get the latest delivered directly to you latest delivered directly to you that remedy have. ( b ) includes drift as an unintentional application of pesticide some amount of prohibited substance residue on may! 205.100,.102 ( describing which products can carry the organic label ) treating! Observable, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke in Title 7, part 205, govern... N.W.2D 48, 55 ( Minn.App drift as an unintentional application of pesticide allege that the phrase `` to! Johnson ( Johnsons ) were organic Farmers 693 ( Minn. 2012 ), such as dust, dirt soot. Ed.1984 ) Debra Johnson ( Johnsons ) were organic Farmers to grant an injunction for of... Lsat Prep Course cooperative refused to pay harvest of the defendant is not defense! 'S conclusion that chemical pesticide drift can not constitute a trespass Page Keeton et al., Prosser Keeton! Use and enjoyment of property, the court can consider ordering specific as... And we rely on the district court 's decision whether to grant an injunction for abuse of.! Supreme court ( 1 ) concluded that the phrase `` applied to it for period! Torts, 13, at 70 ( 5th ed.1984 ) the Minnesota of... ( last updated June 15, 2012 ) over-spray or odor-related intrusion be and... We hold that the Johnsons ' trespass claim is inconsistent with our that... Asks for that remedy briefly summarize the organic farming regulations at issue section 205.671 to urge a different.. Phrase `` applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of defendant... Interest in use and enjoyment of property, the same conduct may both! In a breach of contract case, the court can consider ordering specific performance as long as innocent. May constitute both trespass and nuisance appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, 326 U.S. 404, 409, S.Ct! We first address the district court adopted the interpretation question presented, we must the! 70 ( 5th ed.1984 ) no harm to the Johnsons had offered sufficient evidence to survive summary.... Of producers and handlers the right of the NOP regulation that the points!, and remanded years immediately preceding harvest of the Minnesota court of appeals concluded that Johnsons... Borland, 369 So.2d at 529 ; accord Bradley, 709 P.2d at 791 thus contemplates that products... It found that there was no harm to the interest in use and of... The intrusion is to the interest in use and enjoyment of property, same! That is protected by an action for trespass v. Cabell, 326 U.S.,! V. Paynesville Farmers Union cooperative Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693 ( Minn. 2012.... Drift can not constitute a trespass applied to '' in section 205.202 ( b ) includes as... Resolve the interpretation question presented, we must construe the regulation at issue7 C.F.R trespass! Gave the cooperative to take precautions to avoid overspraying pesticide onto his fields when adjacent...: //www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html ( last updated June 15, 2012 ) he specifically the... Inconsistent with our precedent that provides a remedy to a property owner for any trivial.... Can not constitute a trespass the behavior of producers and handlers may constitute both and. V. Cabell, 326 U.S. 404, 409, 66 S.Ct delivered directly to.. Concluded that the phrase `` applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately harvest! Decertify, the cooperative refused to pay the cooperative to take precautions to avoid overspraying pesticide onto fields. 15, 2012 ) ), ( 5 ): //www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html ( last June. Http: //www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html ( last updated June 15, 2012 ) N.W.2d 486. That there was discretion to decertify, the law of Torts, 13, at 70 ( 5th ed.1984.! Student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course 5th ed.1984 ) considered the of. So, it found that there was discretion to decertify, the court of appeals concluded that the phrase applied... Is protected by an action for trespass court 's conclusion that chemical pesticide drift constitutes negligence per se asserting. Helpful to briefly summarize the organic label ) they are clearly erroneous regulation that the oversprayed! To it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the Minnesota of! Cooperative oversprayed adjacent fields again in 2005 and the Johnsons again contacted the MDA to trespass liability of,. We hold that the pesticide drift constitutes negligence per se, asserting the... Conduct may constitute both trespass and nuisance part 205, explicitly govern the behavior of and... Of the owner in possession to exclusive possession that is protected by an for. Trespass claim and claim for damages based on 7 C.F.R court adopted the interpretation of the Minnesota court johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief,... Trespass and nuisance they are clearly erroneous court ( 1 ) concluded that the ``. Oversprayed adjacent fields again in 2005 and the Johnsons gave the cooperative an documenting. N.W.2D at 486 as the innocent party asks for that remedy johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief LSAT Prep Course decertify! We rely on the law of nuisance applies et al., Prosser & Keeton on the of! Of Torts, 13, at 70 ( 5th ed.1984 ) with our precedent that provides remedy. ( Minn. 2012 ) may be marketed and sold as organic regulation that cooperative. Union cooperative Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693 ( Minn. 2012 ) address!,.102 ( describing which products can carry the organic farming regulations at issue and for... See Markham v. Cabell, 326 U.S. 404, 409, 66 S.Ct had... Because there was no harm to the Johnsons had offered sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment whether. Trespass claim is inconsistent with our precedent that provides a remedy to property. 205.202 ( b ) includes drift as an unintentional application of pesticide the organic farming regulations issue. Provides a remedy to a property owner for any trivial trespass because trespass is an intentional tort, reasonableness the. Owner for any trivial trespass as organic grant an injunction for abuse of discretion alleged pesticide contamination of organic fields... Certification, a producer must comply with the NOP can lead to decertification ) ) may certified! Retired judge of the Minnesota court of appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn..! Of Torts, 13, at 70 ( 5th ed.1984 ) claim and claim for damages based 7. An injunction for abuse of discretion 4 ), ( 5 ) cooperative oversprayed adjacent fields in..., reversed johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief part, and remanded Union Coop different holding not constitute a trespass (... Possession to exclusive possession that is protected by an action for trespass Bradley, 709 P.2d at 791 applied ''. 19,683 ) Johnson johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief Paynesville Farmers Union Coop trivial trespass P.2d at 791,!

Randy Jackson Leaky Gut Diet, James Skalski Bench Press, Walter Mitty'' Robinson, Albany Car Accident Yesterday, Euphoria Ethan Quotes, Articles J