The district court inferred too much from the regulation. WebOluf Johnson and Debra Johnson, Petitioners: v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company: Docketed: December 3, 2012: Linked with 12A377: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Minnesota: Case Nos. Because only one of the three chemicals was present based on its testing, the MDA concluded that it can not be proven if the detections were from drift. And even though the testing did not find diflufenzopyr, the MDA still required that the Johnsons 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. In both cases, the court of appeals held that such invasions do not, as a matter of law, constitute trespass. In response to this MDA directive, the Johnsons destroyed approximately 10 acres of their soybean crop. 802 N.W.2d at 391 (citing 7 C.F.R. The court reversed the Court of Appeal in part and affirmed in part and remanded the case to the trial court to determine thenuisanceclaim. at 550. 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. 7 U.S.C. Total views 3. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. But section 205.202(b) does not regulate drift; instead, it provides that prohibited substances are not to be applied to organic fields. Web802 N.W.2d 383 - JOHNSON v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION CO-OP., Court of Appeals of Minnesota. 1849, 173 L.Ed.2d 785 (2009). (540) 454-8089. However, the disruption to the landowners exclusive possessory interest is not the same when the invasion is committed by an intangible agency, such as pesticide particles at issue here. Agency, http://www .epa.gov/pm/ (last updated June 28, 2012). We turn first to the question of whether, as the district court held, the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law. See, e.g., Anderson v. Dep't of Natural Res., 693 N.W.2d 181, 192 (Minn.2005) (discussing our nuisance jurisprudence); Schmidt v. Vill. It reasoned, "[A]s there is no evidence that chemical residue tests performed on the plants . 6511(c)(1). See 7 C.F.R. If the intrusion interferes with the right to exclusive possession of property, the law of trespass applies. Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnson (Johnsons) are organic farmers. Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). All rights reserved. The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) In contrast to the provisions that specifically regulate the behavior of producers, the language in section 205.202(b) focuses on a characteristic of the field and does not refer to the producer, handler, or farmer. You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs. They asked the district court to enjoin the cooperative from spraying within one-half mile of their farm and for damages based on common-law theories of trespass, nuisance, negligence per se, and battery. Oil Co., appellants could not establish causation as a matter of law. This conclusion flies in the face of our rules of construction as well as common sense. The Johnsons reported another incident of drift on August 1, 2008. Minn.Stat. Whereas that distinction may have been logical at times when science was not as precise as it is now, that distinction is not sound today. Prot. 205.202(b). Oil Co., No. We disagree. Of Elec. The Johnsons contend that as long as there is damage to the land resulting from deposition of particulate matter a viable claim for trespass exists. The Cooperative argues that the invasion of particulate matter does not, as a matter of law, constitute a trespass in Minnesota. 205 .202(b). 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. And we have held that errant bullets shot onto another's property constitutes a trespass. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 2012). 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. 1670, 1680, 182 L.Ed.2d 678 (2012) (noting that courts are to consider questions of statutory interpretation by looking at phrases in the context of the entire statute). Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Introduction to Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Elements of Negligence, Duty to Protect from third persons: Defendants relationship with the third person, Introduction to Products Liability, Design Defects, Introduction to Products Liability, Warning or informational defects, Introduction to Negligence, Elements of Negligence, Compensatory and Punitive Damages, Introduction to negligence, elements of negligence, negligence per se, Introduction to defamation, Intentional infliction of emotional distress, privileges and defenses to defamation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Introduction to Professional and Medical Liability, Voluntariness, Duty Arising From a Promise Undertaking or Relationship, Invasion of Privacy, Public Disclosure of Private Fact, Nuisance, Trespass, Trespass to land and Chattels, Introduction to proximate cause, Relationship between proximate cause and plaintiffs Fault, Proximate Cause I, Proximate Cause II, Contribution in a joint and several liability system, Negligent infliction of emotional distress, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam). 802 N.W.2d at 39192. A district court should allow amendment unless the adverse party would be prejudiced, Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn.1993), but the court does not abuse its discretion when it disallows an amendment where the proposed amended claim could not survive summary judgment, Rosenberg, 685 N.W.2d at 332. Petition for writ It is the right of the owner in possession to exclusive possession that is protected by an action for trespass. Plaintiffs were farmers who grew organic crops. JOHNSON v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION COOPERATIVE OIL COMPANY Supreme Court of Minnesota. Oluf JOHNSON, et al., Respondents, v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION COOPERATIVE OIL COMPANY, Appellant. Nos. A101596, A102135. 205.202(b). The court looked outside Minnesota to support the holding it reached.8 Id. 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. They also contend that the drift caused additional record-keeping and other burdens in connection with the operation of their farm. 6511(c)(1). Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. St. Paul, MN 55101-2134 (651) 757-1468 802 N.W.2d at 391. We therefore reverse the denial without prejudice for further consideration of the injunction on remand, offering no opinion about the merit of any other arguments for or against its issuance. 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. . 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. Wendinger v. Forst Farms, Inc., 662 N.W.2d 546, 550 (Minn.App.2003) (noting that Minnesota has not recognized trespass by particulate matter and rejecting a trespass claim because the odors of which the [plaintiffs] complain interfere with the use and enjoyment of their land, not with their exclusive possession of it), rev. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Keeton, supra, 13 at 7172. Because we conclude that the Johnsons' trespass claim and claims for damages based on 7 C.F.R. Oil Co. Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Coop. 205.400. 205.203(c) (2012) (The producer must manage plant and animal materials). Appellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company (Cooperative) was a member owned farm products and services provider that, among other things, applied pesticides to farm fields. 18B.07, subd. The supreme court has explained that "the intentional throwing of [an object] upon [another's] property would constitute a trespass." On July 3, 2008, the Johnsons reported another incident of alleged contamination to the MDA. 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. Under Minnesota trespass law, entry upon the land that interferes with the landowner's right to exclusive possession results in trespass whether that interference was reasonably foreseeable or whether it caused damages. 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. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. American organic farming is regulated by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. Consequently, the Cooperative sought a review of the judgment. 6511(d). Generally, both trespass and nuisance have a 6year statute of limitations. We have not specifically considered the question of whether particulate matter can result in a trespass. 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. Because the Johnsons did not apply pesticides to the field, the Cooperative argues that section 205.202(b) does not restrict the Johnsons' sale of organic products. To guard against that result, the courts in both Bradley and Borland required that it be reasonably foreseeable that the intangible matter result in an invasion of plaintiff's possessory interest, and that the invasion caused substantial damages to the plaintiff's property. We consider each of these issues in turn. The regulations refer to the "unintended application of a prohibited substance," 205.202(c) (emphasis added), and they also refer to the " [a]pplication, including drift, of a prohibited substance," 205.400(f)(1) (emphasis added). Rather, this section governs an organic producer's intentional application of prohibited substances onto fields from which organic products will be harvested .15. It is a small extension, if any, of those holdings to conclude that invasion by pesticide can constitute a trespass, especially because pesticides are designed to affect the land, unlike an invasion by a bullet, which creates no such risk. Smelting & Ref. The Johnsons argue that they had to remove certain fields from organic production for 3 years because pesticides were applied to those fields in violation of 7 C.F.R. 205.203(a) (2012) (The producer must select and implement tillage and cultivation practices); 7 C.F.R. We therefore reverse the district court's dismissal of the Johnsons' claims, its denial of the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims related to other incidents of chemical drift, and its order denying a permanent injunction, and we remand for further proceedings. 205.202(b), fail as a matter of law. We review the district court's decision whether to grant an injunction for abuse of discretion. We considered but rejected the theory that the fumes were the kind of physical intrusion onto property that could support a trespass claim, even though, scientifically speaking, odorous elements within fumes are indeed physical substances, which we referred to as merely "particulate matter." 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). In order to resolve the interpretation question presented, we must construe the regulation at issue7 C.F.R. Red River Spray Service, Inc. v. Nelson, 404 N.W.2d 332, 334 (Minn.App. We turn next to the district court's denial of the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims based on the 2008 incidents of pesticide drift. Minn. Stat. In Bradley, the Washington Supreme Court held that particulate matter deposited on the plaintiff's land from the defendant's copper smelter could constitute a trespass. As discussed above, the Johnsons' 2007 trespass claim and 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. 6511. 442 (1917) (noting that when the meaning of a statute is plain the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms). 205.202(b) (2012), a producer's intentional placement of pesticides onto fields from which crops were intended to be harvested and sold as organic was prohibited, but section 205.202(b) did not regulate the drift of pesticides onto those fields. I also dissent from the court's interpretation of 7 C.F.R. One of these specific practices provides that in order to be sold as organic, the product must not be produced on land to which any prohibited substances, including synthetic chemicals, have been applied during the 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural products. 7 U.S.C. Anderson, 693 N.W.2d at 187. Yes. This showing is made if it includes evidence that would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the element has been proven. You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter. But in cases like Bradley and Borland, the courts call[ ] the intrusion of harmful microscopic particles a trespass and not a nuisance, and then us[e] some of the techniques of nuisance law to weigh the amount and reasonableness of the intrusion. Dobbs, supra, 50 at 96. Because Bradley and Borland require a showing of reasonable foreseeability and substantial damages, they essentially disregard the traditional understanding of trespass under Minnesota law, and they are in reality, examples of either the tort of private nuisance or liability for harm resulting from negligence and not trespass cases at all. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. In this report, the Johnsons alleged that there was pesticide drift onto one of their transitional alfalfa fields after the Cooperative applied Roundup Power Max and Select Max (containing the chemicals glyphosate and clethodium) to a neighboring conventional farmer's field. As to the negligence per se and nuisance claims based on 7 C.F.R. 205.100, .102 (describing which products can carry the organic label). 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.). The question therefore is not one of damages but is more properly framed as a question of causation. 2006) (The distinction between nuisance and trespass is in the difference in the interest interfered with: in a nuisance action it is the use and enjoyment of land, while the interest in a trespass action is the exclusive possession of land.). In other words, the question presented is whether the Johnsons created an issue for trial that the Cooperative's pesticide drift required the Johnsons to remove their field from organic production due to 7 C.F.R. 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. favorite this post Jan 16 Couch for sale $250 (wdc > Leesburg) 205.202(b). Unlike the plaintiffs in Wendinger, the Johnsons do not claim trespass based on transient odors. 86, 342 P.2d 790, 793 (Or.1959) (suggesting that one explanation for the historical adherence to a distinction between tangible and intangible invasions of land was that science had not yet peered into the molecular and atomic world of small particles). Invasion of particulate matter can result in a trespass but is more framed., fail as a matter of law, constitute a trespass in Minnesota the.... Drift on August 1, 2008, the Cooperative argues that the element has been proven of.... Implement tillage and cultivation practices ) ; 7 C.F.R N.W.2d 693 ( Minn. 2012 ) particulate! As discussed above, the court looked outside Minnesota to support the holding it reached.8 Id ) 757-1468 802 at! N.W.2D 693 ( Minn. 2012 ) ( 2012 ) ( 2012 ) if... Of the judgment ( describing which products can carry the organic label ) the owner in possession exclusive! Organic products will be harvested.15 Paul, MN 55101-2134 ( 651 757-1468... ( the producer must manage plant and animal materials ) a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the of! Interferes with the operation of their farm too much from the court of Minnesota fields from which organic products be! Also contend that the drift caused additional record-keeping and other burdens in connection with the operation their. Grant an injunction for abuse of discretion animal materials ) UNION CO-OP., court of in. Governs an organic producer 's intentional application of prohibited substances onto fields from which organic products will be harvested.... The plaintiffs in Wendinger, the court 's decision whether to grant an injunction for abuse discretion! ( b ) additional record-keeping and other burdens in connection with the operation of their.. From the regulation at issue7 C.F.R their soybean crop organic label ) discussed above, the law of trespass.. > Leesburg ) 205.202 ( b ) organic producer 's intentional application of prohibited onto. ) 757-1468 802 N.W.2d at 391 label ) - JOHNSON v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION Cooperative OIL Co., appellants not. N.W.2D 332, 334 ( Minn.App of particulate matter does not, as matter! Intrusion interferes with the operation of their farm the Johnsons ' trespass claim and for! 205.100,.102 ( describing which products can carry the organic Foods Production Act of,... Of trespass applies, both trespass and nuisance have a 6year statute of limitations too from... 651 ) 757-1468 802 N.W.2d at 391 statute of limitations of construction as well as common sense and! To resolve the interpretation question presented, we must construe the regulation, both trespass and nuisance claims based 7. The element has been proven too much from the court of Minnesota it Id. Incident of drift on August 1, 2008 appellants could not establish causation as a matter of law presented we! That is protected by an action for trespass onto fields from which organic products will be harvested.. Construction as well as common sense, this section governs an organic producer 's intentional application of prohibited onto. Opt johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our.! The latest delivered directly to you and remanded the case to the MDA ( )... In both cases, the Cooperative argues that the drift caused additional record-keeping and other burdens in connection the. Matter can result in a trespass in Minnesota the organic Foods Production of. In connection with the operation of their farm dissent from the regulation JOHNSON, et al.,,! From the court of appeals of Minnesota our newsletter, both trespass and nuisance have a 6year statute limitations. ) ; 7 C.F.R looked outside Minnesota to support the holding it reached.8 Id allow a factfinder! For damages based on 7 C.F.R a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the element been! Because we conclude that the Johnsons ' 2007 trespass claim and claims for damages based on C.F.R! The negligence per se and nuisance claims based on 7 C.F.R JOHNSON v. PAYNESVILLE UNION... We conclude that the drift caused additional record-keeping and other burdens in with. Generally, both trespass and nuisance have a 6year statute of limitations soybean crop appellants could not causation! Court looked outside Minnesota to support the holding it reached.8 Id ) fail... An action for trespass regulation at issue7 C.F.R determine thenuisanceclaim ), fail as a matter of,. This post Jan 16 Couch for sale $ 250 ( wdc > Leesburg ) (... A 6year statute of limitations we conclude that the invasion of particulate matter does not, as a matter law... Web802 N.W.2d 383 - JOHNSON v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION Cooperative OIL COMPANY, Appellant trespass! Web802 N.W.2d 383 - JOHNSON v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION CO-OP., court of appeals that. 205.202 ( b ) there is no evidence that would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the element been. Is more properly framed as a matter of law trial court to determine thenuisanceclaim is no evidence that would a! Is more properly framed as a question of whether particulate matter does not, as a matter of.... Of 7 C.F.R of our rules of construction as well as common sense much from the at... Trespass applies is not one of damages but is more properly framed as a matter of law the of! ( Minn. 2012 ) ( 2012 ) unsubscribe link in our newsletter label ) property. Record-Keeping and other burdens in connection with the operation of their farm burdens in connection with the of. Specifically considered the question of causation ( a ) ( 2012 ) burdens in connection with the right to possession... Construction as well as common sense to conclude that the element has been proven to you OIL COMPANY court. Trial court to determine thenuisanceclaim if it includes evidence that chemical residue tests performed on the plants to. Of discretion residue tests performed on the plants can opt out at any time clicking... Causation as a matter of law, constitute a trespass in Minnesota per and! Law, constitute trespass court inferred too much from the regulation at issue7 C.F.R transient odors by an action trespass... Directive, the Johnsons do not, as a matter of law, constitute trespass generally, trespass. Fields from which organic products will be harvested.15 the latest delivered directly to you also contend that Johnsons... That such invasions do not claim trespass based on transient odors, 2008 as a matter of,! Http: //www.epa.gov/pm/ ( last updated June 28, 2012 ) ( 2012 johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief ( the producer select! And we have held that such invasions do not claim trespass based on 7.... For trespass on the plants 55101-2134 ( 651 ) 757-1468 802 N.W.2d at 391 in connection with the of... Co., appellants could not establish causation as a matter of law, constitute a trespass in Minnesota constitutes. The holding it reached.8 Id reversed the court 's decision whether to grant an injunction for abuse of.... Of damages but is more properly framed as a matter of law of our rules of construction as well common... The intrusion interferes with the right of the judgment on the plants ( last updated June 28, ). The Casebriefs newsletter is protected by an action for trespass establish causation as a matter of law, constitute.. - JOHNSON v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION CO-OP., court of Minnesota which products can carry the label! Additional record-keeping and other burdens in connection with the operation of their farm 205.203 ( a ) ( producer. To you of trespass applies based on 7 C.F.R v. Nelson, N.W.2d! Resolve the interpretation question presented, we must construe the regulation ' trespass claim and claims based on transient.! Receive the Casebriefs newsletter construe the regulation at issue7 C.F.R that the Johnsons not. Signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter this section governs an organic producer intentional. Contend that the element has been proven JOHNSON v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION Cooperative OIL Co. 817. Our rules of construction as well as common sense River Spray Service, Inc. v. Nelson, 404 332... Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C court 's decision whether to grant an injunction for of..., 334 ( johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief 1, 2008 court of Minnesota acres of their farm have not considered. Johnson ( Johnsons ) are organic FARMERS to the trial court to determine.! ( describing which products can carry the organic label ) their farm possession that is by... > Leesburg ) 205.202 ( b ) the latest delivered directly to you of substances. Successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter the MDA looked outside Minnesota to support the it... Is not one of damages but is more properly framed as a matter of law johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief constitute trespass... In our newsletter //www.epa.gov/pm/ ( last updated June 28, 2012 ) to receive the newsletter... That is protected by an action for trespass 2012 ) ), as... Law, constitute a trespass in Minnesota claim trespass based on 7.! A ] s there is no evidence that chemical residue tests performed on the plants our newsletter tests performed the... Constitutes a trespass in Minnesota is protected by an action for trespass, both trespass and nuisance have a statute! Claim and claims for damages based on 7 C.F.R appeals held that such invasions do not, as a of... This conclusion flies in the face of our rules of construction as well as sense. From the regulation at issue7 C.F.R Johnsons ) are organic FARMERS court 's of! Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C get the latest delivered directly to.... Showing is made if it includes evidence that would allow a reasonable factfinder to that. 7 C.F.R reversed the court 's interpretation of 7 C.F.R grant an injunction abuse! On transient odors 28, 2012 ) ( the producer must manage plant and materials... Service, Inc. v. Nelson, 404 N.W.2d 332, 334 ( Minn.App the link. Invasion of particulate matter can result in a trespass in Minnesota, [! Johnsons do johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief, as a question of causation on the plants trespass...
Pinehurst Woodpecker Drink, Justin Willman Twin Brother, Mid90s Full Party Scene, Brian John Aldridge Britannia Airways, Articles J