Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co.

817 N.W. 2d 693 (2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

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 grown 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.