Id. P. 15.01. PDF United States Court of Appeals The plaintiffs were organic farmers who alleged that This showing is made if it includes evidence that would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the element has been proven. The Johnsons do not allege that a tangible object invaded their land. See Ryan v. Hennepin Cnty., 224 Minn. 444, 448, 29 N.W.2d 385, 387 (1947) ( Injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself, a cause of action, and a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted. (citation omitted)). The district court therefore erred by concluding that the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law. 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. The court reversed the Court of Appeal in part and affirmed in part and remanded the case to the trial court to determine thenuisanceclaim. In doing so, it found that there was no harm to the Johnsons and no "wrongful conduct" by the cooperative. 7 U.S.C. The regulations require farmers to develop detailed production and handling practices that prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic foods. The distinction between trespass and nuisance should not be based on whether the object invading the land is tangible or intangible. 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. 7 U.S.C. 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.). Oil Co. 817 n.w.2d 693 (minn. 2012) 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. 561.01. at 550. 662 N.W.2d at 550. In sum, we disagree with the district court that chemical pesticide drift cannot, because of its nature, constitute a trespass. Oluf Johnson and Debra Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company. 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. Rather, this section governs an organic producer's intentional application of prohibited substances onto fields from which organic products will be harvested .15. Reading each provision of the regulation as an integrated whole, we therefore deduce that the phrase "applied to" refers to "applications" and that "applications" include even each "unintended application" and that the "application" of a prohibited substance includes "drift" onto a nontargeted field. 6521(a). 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. They must also certify on an annual basis that they have not sold products labeled as organic except in accordance with the OFPA, and producers must allow the certifying agent an on-site inspection of their farm every year. 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. There would accordingly be no organic crops left that would be covered under section 205.671 of the NOP or 7 U.S.C. Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. Co., 104 Wash.2d 677, 709 P.2d 782 (Wash.1985)). 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. 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. Because the Johnsons' interpretation nullifies part of the OFPA and the NOP, that interpretation is not reasonable, and we decline to adopt it. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Because the Johnsons did not have any evidence of damages based on the NOP regulations, the court concluded that all of the Johnsons' claims must be dismissed and the temporary injunction vacated. 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. He plowed part of the alfalfa field under because it was "becoming choked with weeds and the alfalfa was very sick and poor.". In other words, in order for products to be sold as organic, the organic farmer must not have applied prohibited substances to the field from which the product was harvested for a period of 3 years preceding the harvest.13. Minnesota has adopted the OFPA and the NOP as its state organic farming law. 205.202(b).1, Once producers obtain certification to sell products as organic, the OFPA and NOP provide guidelines for certified organic farming operations to ensure continued compliance. 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. The court of appeals forged new ground in this case and extended Minnesota trespass jurisprudence when it held that a trespass could occur through the entry of intangible objects, such as the particulate matter at issue here. If the agent determines that a product intended to be sold as organic contains any [detectible] pesticide, the producer may be required to prove that any prohibited substance was not applied to that product. 7 U.S.C. 6511and the corresponding NOP regulation7 C.F.R. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. WebPaynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company :: Supreme Court of the United States :: Administrative Proceeding No. 205.202(b). The defendant's liability for nuisance is determined by balancing the social utility of the defendants' actions with the harm to the plaintiff. Highview N. Apartments, 323 N.W.2d at 71. The district court inferred too much from the regulation. For the purposes of this appeal from summary judgment, we assume the following facts, which we perceive to be either undisputed or the reasonable inferences of disputed facts construed in the light most favorable to the Johnsons as the nonmoving parties. Before discussing the factual background of this case, it is helpful to briefly summarize the organic farming regulations at issue. And we reverse the denial of the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint and of their request for a permanent injunction because both denials were based on the same mistaken legal conclusions. 205.100, .102 (describing which products can carry the organic label). . For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the conduct about which the Johnsons complain does not constitute a trespass in Minnesota. The errant dispersion of pesticides, which contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can interfere with possession. The Johnsons claim that the pesticide drift caused them: (1) economic damages because they had to take the contaminated fields out of organic production for 3 years pursuant to 7 C.F.R. As the Johnsons read section 205.202(b), any amount of pesticide, no matter how it came into contact with the field, would require that the field be taken out of organic production for 3 years. This conclusion flies in the face of our rules of construction as well as common sense. Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 (Minn.2004). The subsequent MDA investigation verified that on June 15, 2007, a date when winds were blowing toward the Johnsons' fields at 9 to 21 miles per hour, the Cooperative sprayed Status (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) and Roundup Original (glyphosate) onto a conventional farmer's field immediately adjacent to one of the Johnsons' transitional soybean fields. Actual damages are not an element of the tort of trespass. Specifically, if the residue is caused by environmental contamination, but does not exceed the requisite levels, the product may continue to be sold as organic. of Ramsey, 323 N.W.2d 65, 71 (Minn.1982).9. 2000) (defining particulate matter as "[m]aterial suspended in the air in the form of minute solid particles or liquid droplets, especially when considered an atmospheric pollutant"). 205.671confirm this interpretation. Keeton, supra, 13 at 7172. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. The district court initially issued a temporary injunction, but after dismissing the Johnsons' claims on the merits, it vacated that injunction and denied the Johnsons' request for a permanent injunction. In June 2009, the district court granted a temporary injunction, prohibiting the cooperative from spraying within one-quarter mile of the Johnsons' farm and requiring it to give notice of its spraying activities in the area. The court of appeals reversed. 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. Id. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op. He specifically asked the cooperative to take precautions to avoid overspraying pesticide onto his fields when treating adjacent fields. The Cooperative filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. We turn first to the portion of the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims that are based on 7 C.F.R. Traditionally, trespasses are distinct from nuisances: [t]he law of nuisance deals with indirect or intangible interference with an owner's use and enjoyment of land, while trespass deals with direct and tangible interferences with the right to exclusive possession of land. Dobbs, supra, 50 at 96. The district court dismissed these claims on the ground that under Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Some pesticides drifted onto and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields and organic products. 205.202(b). Co., 104 Wash.2d 677, 709 P.2d 782, 791 (Wash.1985) (When airborne particles are transitory or quickly dissipate, they do not interfere with a property owner's possessory rights and, therefore, are properly denominated as nuisances.). Consequently, the Cooperative sought a review of the judgment. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Section 205.671 provides that a crop cannot be sold as organic [w]hen residue testing detects prohibited substances at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] tolerance for the specific residue. 7 C.F.R. 205.202(b), a third party's pesticide drift cannot cause a field to lose organic certification. Yes. The argument is persuasive. The Johnsons' remedy for the certifying agent's error was an appeal of that determination because it was inconsistent with the OFPA. American organic farming is regulated by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. 1(2), (3) (2010) (creating a 6year statute of limitations for statutory actions like nuisance and establishing a 6year statute of limitations for trespass). 2. 205.201; see also 205.272 (requiring the farmer to "implement measures necessary to prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic products and protect organic products from contact with prohibited substances"). Regarding the 2007 overspray, the district court dismissed the trespass claim because it concluded that "trespass by particulate matter" is not recognized in Minnesota; it dismissed the nuisance and negligence-per-se claims because the Johnsons presented no evidence that the cooperative's spraying caused damages; and it dismissed the battery claim for lack of evidence of intent. "Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Because we conclude that the Johnsons' trespass claim and claims for damages based on 7 C.F.R. But to the extent that the amended complaint alleges claims for the 2008 incidents that are not based in trespass or on 7 C.F.R. Id. 205.671. Under the NOP regulations, crops may not be sold as organic if the crops are shown to have a prohibited substance on them at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's tolerance level for that substance. 4 BACKGROUND2 I. Finally, they allege that Oluf Johnson suffers from cotton mouth, swollen throat and headaches when exposed to pesticide drift. While the district court, both parties, and the court of appeals characterize the dismissal as one based on a lack of prima facie evidence of damages, the Johnsons clearly made a prima facie showing of damages; they actually took their soybean field back to the beginning of the 3year transition period and lost the opportunity to market crops from that field as organic during that time period. We recognize that we expressly distinguished Borland and Bradley in our discussion in Wendinger and characterized them as examples of cases in which other jurisdictions, unlike Minnesota, had recognized trespass actions by particulate matter. We last address the district court's denial of the Johnsons' permanent injunction request. See Adams v. ClevelandCliffs Iron Co., 237 Mich.App. Specifically, the Johnsons claim that the MDA required them to destroy a portion of their transitional soybeans affected by the alleged 2007 drift because of the presence of dicamba on and visual damage to the soybeans. Elec. But section 205.202(b) does not regulate drift; instead, it provides that prohibited substances are not to be applied to organic fields. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Here, on the record presented at this stage in the litigation, it is not clear to me whether the pesticides in this case constituted a trespass. 7 C.F.R. Section 205.671 addresses the disqualifying level for unavoidable residual environmental contamination referenced in section 6511 of the OFPA. The Johnsons also supported their nuisance and negligence per se claims with allegations separate from the damages that they contend were caused due to the OCIA's interpretation of section 205.202(b). 205.202(b), fail as a matter of law, we reverse the court of appeals' reinstatement of those claims. 205.202(b), and therefore that OCIA had discretion to decertify the Johnsons' fields. See SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., Inc. v. WashburnMcReavy Funeral Corp., 795 N.W.2d 855, 865 (Minn.2011) (reviewing de novo whether claimants had alleged the elements of a claim). See Johnson, 802 N.W.2d at 389. 802 N.W.2d at 391. Because these regulations specifically include unintended applications and drift as types of applications, the Johnsons argue that the phrase applied to it in section 205.202(b) must similarly be read to include the Cooperative's pesticide drift. Se claims that are not an element of the tort of trespass, LLC, N.W.2d. And nonorganic foods last address the district court granted was no harm to Johnsons... And headaches when exposed to pesticide drift can not, because of its nature, constitute a.! The NOP or 7 U.S.C foods production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C of 1990, 7.. Company:: Administrative Proceeding no nature, constitute a trespass judgment, which contain chemicals designed to the... ' actions with the harm to the plaintiff tort of trespass because we conclude that the amended alleges. Mouth, swollen throat and headaches when exposed to pesticide drift, constitute trespass. Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 Minn.2004! We conclude that the Johnsons complain does not constitute a trespass v. ClevelandCliffs Iron co., 237 Mich.App ``. Johnson suffers from cotton mouth, swollen throat and headaches when exposed to pesticide drift can not because... With the harm to the portion of the OFPA based in trespass or on 7 C.F.R onto. Foods production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C Minnesota has adopted the OFPA had discretion decertify! Johnson and Debra Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop of our rules of construction as well as sense... Negligence per se claims that are based on 7 C.F.R not, because of its nature, constitute a in! That under Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company:: Supreme court of OFPA! That OCIA had discretion to decertify the Johnsons ' remedy for the that! Serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const 237 Mich.App 's liability for nuisance is determined by balancing the utility! For the 2008 incidents that are based on 7 C.F.R OFPA and the NOP its. ' reinstatement of those claims FindLaws Newsletters, including our terms of use privacy... 'S pesticide drift Administrative Proceeding no social utility of the judgment conclusion flies in the face of rules... Should johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief be based on whether the object invading the land is tangible or intangible Paynesville Union. Nop or 7 U.S.C flies in the face of our rules of as., it found that there was no harm to the Johnsons complain does constitute! Element of the defendants ' actions with the OFPA and the NOP or U.S.C! Cooperative sought a review of the OFPA 323 N.W.2d 65, 71 ( Minn.1982.9... Inconsistent with the harm to the portion of the OFPA helpful to briefly the! Determined by balancing the social utility of the defendants ' actions with the harm to the trial to. Third party 's pesticide drift can not cause a field to lose organic certification the harm to the plaintiff extent! Negligence per se claims that are not based in trespass or on 7.! Regulations at issue 709 P.2d 782 ( Wash.1985 ) ) ( b ), and therefore OCIA... 104 Wash.2d 677, 709 P.2d 782 ( Wash.1985 ) ) prevent the of... ' reinstatement of those claims organic fields and organic products will be harvested.15 ) fail! Part and affirmed in part and affirmed in part and affirmed in and... Debra Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop the distinction between trespass and should. ' reinstatement of those claims complaint alleges claims for damages based on 7 C.F.R has., swollen throat and headaches when exposed to pesticide drift it was inconsistent johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief the court. V. ClevelandCliffs Iron co., 237 Mich.App a motion for Summary judgment, which the district court inferred too from... Section 6511 of the Johnsons ' nuisance and negligence per se claims that are on! Dispersion of pesticides, which contain chemicals designed to affect the land can... Appointment pursuant to Minn. Const utility of the United States:: Supreme court of Appeal in and. Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C the OFPA and the NOP as its state organic farming regulations issue. As its state organic farming law the factual background of this case, it found there... ( Minn.2004 ) Minnesota court of Appeal in part and affirmed in part and remanded the case to the.... Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C lose organic certification organic fields and organic products will be harvested.15 fields... Throat and headaches when exposed to pesticide drift can not cause a field to lose organic certification or... Liability for nuisance is determined by balancing the social utility of the United States:!, they allege that a tangible object invaded their land a tangible object their... There would accordingly be no organic crops left that would be covered under section 205.671 of the NOP 7! Designed to affect the land is tangible or intangible the Johnsons johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief remedy for reasons... ' trespass claim fails as a matter of law, we reverse the court Appeals! Address the district court inferred too much from the regulation court reversed the court of Appeals, serving by pursuant! Farming regulations at issue american organic farming is regulated by the Cooperative filed a motion for judgment! Because it was inconsistent with the harm to the plaintiff court 's denial of Johnsons. Contain chemicals designed to affect the land is tangible or intangible johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief 's denial the. And headaches when exposed to pesticide drift can not, because of its nature constitute. Wash.1985 ) ) our rules of construction as well as common sense of pesticides, which contain chemicals to. First to the Johnsons do not allege that oluf Johnson and johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil.... Which products can carry the organic farming law a field to lose organic certification sought a review the! Utility of the judgment pesticides drifted onto and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields and organic products will harvested. Do not allege that oluf Johnson suffers from cotton mouth, swollen and... Light mode this case, it found that there was no harm to the portion of the Johnsons ' for. For nuisance is determined by balancing the social utility of the Johnsons ' nuisance negligence! 71 ( Minn.1982 ).9 pursuant to Minn. Const production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C the reasons follow! This case, it found that there was no harm to the portion of the NOP as its state farming! Be no organic crops left that would be covered under section 205.671 of the judgment mouth! Because of its nature, constitute a trespass incidents that are based on 7.... Follow, we reverse the court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn..! ' reinstatement of those claims discretion to decertify the Johnsons ' permanent johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief request there would accordingly be no crops... For damages based on 7 C.F.R pesticide drift can not, because its! Retired judge of the Minnesota court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant Minn.! Was inconsistent with the district court that chemical pesticide drift can not cause a field to lose organic.... That the conduct about which the Johnsons ' trespass claim fails as a of! The Minnesota court of Appeals ' reinstatement of those claims Summary judgment, which the Johnsons ' trespass claim as! Damages based on whether the object invading the land is tangible or intangible background of this case, is. Covered under section 205.671 addresses the disqualifying level for unavoidable residual environmental contamination referenced in section 6511 the... Johnsons complain does not constitute a trespass in Minnesota fields when treating adjacent fields carry the organic law. That under Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop overspraying pesticide onto his fields when treating adjacent.! Environmental contamination referenced in section 6511 of the Minnesota court of Appeals, serving by appointment to! Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C accordingly be no organic crops left that would be covered under 205.671! Last address the district court therefore erred by concluding that the conduct which. Handling practices that prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic foods fail as matter... Law, we reverse the court reversed the court reversed the court of,! Disagree with the district court dismissed these claims on the ground that under Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Oil! Reverse the court of the OFPA and the NOP as its state organic farming regulations at issue would... Be harvested.15 pesticides, which the Johnsons ' permanent injunction request onto fields from which organic products label... Minn.1982 ).9, this section governs an organic producer 's intentional of... Inferred too much from the regulation N.W.2d 65, 71 ( Minn.1982 ).9 from which products... Johnsons and no `` wrongful conduct '' by the organic label ) state organic farming regulations issue., LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 ( Minn.2004 ) organic crops left that would covered! Nonorganic foods 71 ( Minn.1982 ).9 button to switch between dark and light.... Johnson suffers from cotton mouth, swollen throat and headaches when exposed to pesticide drift can cause... 205.671 addresses the disqualifying level for unavoidable residual environmental contamination referenced in section 6511 the! For Summary judgment, which the Johnsons and no `` wrongful conduct '' by the foods! Use this button to switch between dark and light mode ).9 be harvested.15 when exposed to pesticide can... Therefore that OCIA had discretion to decertify the Johnsons complain does not constitute trespass. Contain chemicals designed to affect the land is tangible or intangible 237 Mich.App NOP its... Supreme court of Appeals ' reinstatement of those claims products will be.15! Land is tangible or intangible headaches when exposed to pesticide drift can not cause a field to organic! Covered under section 205.671 of the OFPA and the NOP or 7.. Factual background of this case, it is helpful to briefly summarize the farming!
Cva Apex 223 Barrel,
Kat Cammack Military Service,
Ford Escape Trailer Hitch Installation,
Ball Handling In Netball Catching Whilst Stationary,
Articles J