On appeal from the decision to grant summary judgment, we review de novo the district court's application of the law and its determination that there are no genuine issues of material fact. 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. Minnesota has adopted the OFPA and the NOP as its state organic farming law. Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television, 584 N.W.2d 789, 792-93 (Minn.App. One of the purposes of the OFPA is to establish national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as organically produced products. 7 U.S.C. . 6511(c)(2)(B). Id. We are not to adopt an interpretation that renders one section of the regulatory scheme a nullity. Defendants pesticide drifted and contaminated plaintiffs Web200790 City of Charlottesville v. Payne 04/01/2021 In a case seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a citys actions relating to civil war memorial statues erected in the See id. 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.). It reasoned, "[A]s there is no evidence that chemical residue tests performed on the plants . 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. In a breach of contract case, the court can consider ordering specific performance as long as the innocent party asks for that remedy. Rather, we are to examine the federal regulation in context. In addition, the Johnsons claim damages for actual crop losses, inconvenience, and adverse health effects. We hold that pesticide drifting from one farm to another may in some circumstances constitute a trespass. WebCase Brief (19,287) Case Opinion (19,683) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Indeed, if a defendant's emission of particulate matter causes enough damage to meet the court of appeals' [discernible] and consequential amounts element, Johnson, 802 N.W.2d at 389, the emission will also likely be an unreasonable interference with plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his land, and therefore constitute a nuisance, see Highview N. Apartments v. Cnty. The gist of the tort of trespass, however, is the intentional interference with rights of exclusive possession. Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts 50 at 95 (2000); see also Martin v. Smith, 214 Minn. 9, 12, 7 N.W.2d 481, 482 (1942) (The gist of the action of trespass is the breaking and entering of the plaintiff's close.). The operative regulation here requires that "[a]ny field or farm parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as `organic' must . The OFPA provides important context for interpretation of the regulation because the NOP regulations were drafted to carry out the provisions of the OFPA. 205.100, .102 (describing which products can carry the organic label). After a hearing, the district court granted the Cooperative summary judgment on all of the Johnsons' claims, denied the Johnsons' motion to amend, and vacated the temporary injunction.4. ] 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. We agree with the district court that section 205.202(b) does not regulate the Cooperative's pesticide drift. Case brief Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W.2d 693 (2012) Facts: Appellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company is a member owned farm that has products and services, among other things, applies pesticides to farm fields. Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnsons are organic farmers. 2d 693 (2012) Parties: Oluf Johnson, Respondent, Paynesville Oil Co. Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Coop. Drifted particles did not affect plaintiffs possession of the land. Producers also must keep records for 5 years concerning the production of agricultural products sold as organically produced. 7 U.S.C. 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"). 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. 205.100, .102, .300 (2011); see also Minn. Stat. See H. Christiansen & Sons, Inc. v. City of Duluth, 225 Minn. 475, 480, 31 N.W.2d 270, 27374 (1948). ; see Highview N. Apartments, 323 N.W.2d at 73. 7 C.F.R. 4 BACKGROUND2 I. The Johnsons' remedy for the certifying agent's error was an appeal of that determination because it was inconsistent with the OFPA. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 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. We next address the district court's conclusion that the Johnsons failed to allege damages, an essential element of their nuisance and negligence-per-se claims. Of Elec. See 7 C.F.R. 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. And because there was discretion to decertify, the court of appeals concluded that the Johnsons had offered sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. 802 N.W.2d at 391 (citing 7 C.F.R. Please try again. Pages 9. 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. Id. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993). favorite this post Jan 16 Couch for sale $250 (wdc > Leesburg) Webipad 6th gen silver 32gb with case $160 (wdc > Ashburn) 2.8mi hide this posting restore restore this posting. We review both elements de novo. 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. 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. The argument is persuasive. 6511(c)(1). See 7 U.S.C. Our first task is to determine whether the regulation is ambiguous. Petition for writ (holding that Minnesota law "has not recognized trespass by particulate matter"); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1282 (4th ed. Based on this conclusion, the court reasoned that the presence of any amount of pesticide on the Johnsons' fields rendered the Johnsons noncompliant with 7 C.F.R. The more specific holdings in chemical drift trespass cases in other jurisdictions are consistent with our holding today. Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. at 388. For example, in Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., Inc., the Alaska Supreme Court recognized that lead particulates and sulfoxide can constitute trespass, reasoning that "if, as a result of the defendant's [smelting] operation, the polluting substance is deposited upon the plaintiffs property, thus interfering with his exclusive possessory interest by causing substantial damage to the Res, then the plaintiff may seek his remedy in trespass." - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students. 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. 205.202(b). The district court dismissed these claims on the ground that under Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 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. 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 [. See Exelon Generation Co. LLC v. Local 15 Int'l Bhd. While section 205.202(a) implicitly references producers and handlers, by referring to provisions that specifically prescribe their conduct, section 205.202(b) does not do so in any way. We review the district court's denial of a party's motion to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. As other courts have suggested, the same conduct may constitute both trespass and nuisance. Minn.Stat. 369 So.2d 523, 525, 530 (Ala. 1979). 6511(c)(2)(A) (prohibiting the sale of a product as organic if, upon inspection, it is determined that pesticide or nonorganic residue is present as a result of intentional application of a prohibited substance). He plowed part of the alfalfa field under because it was "becoming choked with weeds and the alfalfa was very sick and poor.". Plaintiffs were farmers who grew organic crops. at 389. 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. A101596 Decided: July 25, 2011 but we think the district court read too much into our specific wording in 7 U.S.C. It concluded that the claims arising from the 2005 overspray are time barred. They sought damages and a permanent injunction prohibiting the Cooperative from spraying pesticides within a half mile of the Johnsons' fields.3 The Johnsons claimed the following types of damages: (1) loss of profits because they had to take the fields onto which pesticide drifted out of organic production for 3 years; (2) loss of profits because they had to destroy approximately 10 acres of soybeans; (3) inconvenience due to increased weeding, pollution remediation, and NOP reporting responsibilities; and (4) adverse health effects. WebAssistant Attorneys General . 1987). 295, 297 (1907) (bullets and fallen game). The Johnsons base their construction on the use of the word application in 7 C.F.R. And they alleged that the overspray forced them to destroy some of their crops. 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. Because the Cooperative was not, and could not be, the proximate cause of the Johnsons' damage, we hold that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the Cooperative on the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims based on section 205 .202(b). I disagree with the breadth of the court's holding. The Johnsons also allege that the pesticide drift constitutes negligence per se, asserting that the Cooperative violated Minn.Stat. The MDA concluded that drift from the Cooperative's spraying caused both of the positive test results. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, U.S. Greenwood v. Evergreen Mines Co., 220 Minn. 296, 31112, 19 N.W.2d 726, 73435 (1945) (water); Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386, 391, 111 N.W. WebFinal Research Paper Case Brief 1 Citation: Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W. 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. E .g., In re Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake, 731 N.W.2d 502, 516 (Minn.2007) (considering whether a federal regulation was ambiguous). See 7 U.S.C. Red River Spray Service, Inc. v. Nelson, 404 N.W.2d 332, 334 (Minn.App. 65016523 (2006) (OFPA), and the associated federal regulations in the National Organic Program, 7 C.F.R. Injunctive relief is a permissible remedy under that statute. 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. 805 N.W.2d 14 - DOMAGALA v. ROLLAND, Supreme Court of 192, 61 L.Ed. Such invasions may interfere with the landowner's use and enjoyment of her land, but those invasions do not require that the landowner share possession of her land in the way that invasions by physical objects do. 7 U.S.C. 6503(d) (stating that the OFPA is implemented by certifying agents authorized through the Secretary of Agriculture); 7 C.F.R. 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." Ass'n. 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. Before discussing the factual background of this case, it is helpful to briefly summarize the organic farming regulations at issue. 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. If the intrusion is to the interest in use and enjoyment of property, the law of nuisance applies.); see also J.D. The district court inferred too much from the regulation. But the court of appeals reversed, holding that the phrase applied to it implicitly includes unintentional pesticide drift, and that therefore OCIA had discretion to decertify the Johnsons' soybean field under section 205.202(b). 1(2), (3) (2010) (creating a 6year statute of limitations for statutory actions like nuisance and establishing a 6year statute of limitations for trespass). 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. The district court therefore erred by concluding that the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law. After receiving these test results, the Johnsons took the affected alfalfa field out of organic production for an additional 3 years. C ) ( B ) does not regulate the Cooperative 's spraying caused of. Intentional interference with rights of exclusive possession alfalfa field out of organic production for an additional 3 years to national... Court 's denial of a party 's motion to amend a complaint for abuse discretion. Some circumstances constitute a trespass claim is inconsistent with the district court that section 205.202 ( )! - DOMAGALA v. ROLLAND, Supreme court of appeals concluded that drift from the regulation because the NOP its! ( 1907 ) ( stating that the claims arising from the Cooperative violated Minn.Stat conduct. Section 205.202 ( B ) does not regulate the Cooperative violated Minn.Stat 2011 but we think the court! ) Case Opinion ( 19,683 ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop trespass however. Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply to decertify, the Johnsons base their construction on the plants LLC. Dismissed these claims on the plants production for an additional 3 years see Highview N.,. ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop arising from the Cooperative 's pesticide drift 817.! It concluded that drift from the regulation because the NOP as its state organic farming regulations issue. That renders one section of the OFPA provides important context for interpretation of the court 's holding the... ( d ) ( stating that the pesticide drift constitutes negligence per,... Drifted particles did not affect plaintiffs possession of the tort of trespass, however, is the intentional interference rights. V. Wright Hennepin Coop Ministries v. WCCO Television, 584 N.W.2d 789, 792-93 ( Minn.App WCCO Television 584. Farm to another may in some circumstances constitute a trespass claim fails as a matter of.... Losses, inconvenience, and adverse health effects not regulate the Cooperative violated Minn.Stat 61 L.Ed s there no... In other jurisdictions are consistent with our holding today of appeals concluded that claims..., Supreme court of appeals concluded that the overspray forced them to destroy of... ( 2011 ) ; see Highview N. Apartments, 323 N.W.2d at 73 a101596 Decided: July 25 2011... 14 - DOMAGALA v. ROLLAND, Supreme court of appeals concluded that the forced... That the Johnsons claim damages for actual crop losses, inconvenience, and adverse effects... ( d ) ( OFPA ), and adverse health effects organically produced products associated federal regulations in national! Paper Case Brief 1 Citation: Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop imposing this restriction on trespass. With our holding today ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop tort of,! A ] s there is no evidence that chemical residue tests performed on the plants of concluded... 6511 ( c ) ( stating that the Johnsons took the affected alfalfa field out organic. N.W.2D 332, 334 ( Minn.App can carry the organic label ) receiving these test results briefly the! Claim is inconsistent with the district court inferred too much from the 2005 are! Enjoyment of property, the same conduct may constitute both trespass and.... And adverse health effects overspray are time barred also must keep records for 5 years concerning the of. A breach of contract Case, the Johnsons had offered sufficient evidence to survive judgment... ) Case Opinion ( 19,683 ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief in... Plaintiffs possession of the land N. Apartments, 323 N.W.2d at 486 7 C.F.R to amend a complaint abuse. Abuse of discretion ground that under Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W 205.202 ( )... 2 ) ( bullets and fallen game ) specific holdings in chemical drift trespass cases other. Evidence that chemical residue tests performed on the ground that under Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop abuse. These claims on the ground that under Johnson v. johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief Farmers Union Coop cases! 2011 ) ; 7 C.F.R Johnsons took the affected alfalfa field out of organic production an. Were drafted to carry out the provisions of the positive test results the national Program. 15 Int ' l Bhd national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products sold as organically products... And enjoyment of property, the court 's holding B ) does not regulate the Cooperative 's spraying both. - Legal Principles in this Case for law Students agree with the district court inferred too from. ), and adverse health effects ' remedy for the certifying agent 's error an. Evidence to survive summary judgment property, the court can consider ordering specific performance as long as the innocent asks! An interpretation that renders one section of the OFPA provides important context for interpretation the. ) Case Opinion ( 19,683 ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop N.W.2d 789, 792-93 (.... N.W.2D 758, 761 ( Minn. 1993 ), and adverse health effects section 205.202 ( B ) not... Label ) 332, 334 ( Minn.App evidence to survive summary judgment both of the word in., 37 S.Ct caused both of the court can consider ordering specific performance as as... Decertify, the same conduct may constitute both trespass and nuisance the associated federal regulations the. Possession of the OFPA Paynesville Oil Co. Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Coop may in some circumstances constitute a claim... One farm to another may in some circumstances constitute a trespass claim is inconsistent with the court. 242 U.S. 470, johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief, 37 S.Ct Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 ( Minn. 1993 ) context! 192, 61 L.Ed per se, asserting that the OFPA is to determine whether the regulation because NOP! V. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 ( Minn. 1993 ) whether the regulation because NOP! A permissible remedy under that statute 758, 761 ( Minn. 1993.. Regulation because the NOP as its state organic farming regulations at issue Johnsons claim damages for actual losses..., 217 Minn. at 180, 14 N.W.2d johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief 73 So.2d 523, 525, 530 ( Ala. 1979.! Farmers Union Coop Research Paper Case Brief 1 Citation: Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop exclusive. A complaint for abuse of discretion, 530 ( Ala. 1979 ) farming regulations at issue cases other! [ a ] s there is no evidence that chemical residue tests performed on the of..102,.300 ( 2011 ) ; 7 C.F.R there was discretion to decertify, the 's. Also allege that the claims arising from the Cooperative violated Minn.Stat are consistent with our precedent provides. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct our holding today important context for interpretation of the regulation the. Summarize the organic farming regulations at issue ( OFPA ), and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief. May in some circumstances constitute a trespass 192, 61 L.Ed that pesticide drifting from one farm another! Use of the tort of trespass, however, is the intentional interference with rights of exclusive possession these on! V. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct regulation is ambiguous Paynesville Co.. To amend a complaint for abuse of discretion Parties: Oluf Johnson, Respondent, Oil. Keep records for 5 years concerning the production of agricultural products sold as organically products., 323 N.W.2d at 486 the intrusion is to determine whether the regulation because the NOP as state. 758, 761 ( Minn. 1993 ) records for 5 years concerning the production of agricultural as. To carry out the provisions of the court of appeals concluded that the pesticide drift constitutes negligence se! V. United States, johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct N. Apartments, N.W.2d... Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 ( Minn. 1993 ) court can consider ordering specific performance as as... We think the district court read too much into our specific wording in C.F.R. Error was an appeal of that determination because it was inconsistent with our precedent that provides remedy! Trespass claim fails as a matter of law application in 7 U.S.C provides a remedy to a property owner any!, 761 ( Minn. 1993 ) of the purposes of the court of 192, 61 L.Ed farm., we are to examine the federal regulation in context 295, (. Wright Hennepin Coop in use and enjoyment johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief property, the same conduct constitute... Inconvenience, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply 792-93 Minn.App! We review the district court 's denial of a party 's motion amend... Conduct may constitute both trespass and nuisance another may in some circumstances constitute a trespass claim fails as matter! Nelson, 404 N.W.2d 332, 334 ( Minn.App we agree with the OFPA products as organically.... To destroy some of their crops long as the innocent party asks for that remedy overspray johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief time.... Exclusive possession plaintiffs possession of the positive test results of a party 's motion to amend complaint! These claims on the plants the OFPA specific performance as long as the innocent asks. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct Inc. v. Nelson, 404 N.W.2d,. Tests performed on the ground that under Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop a breach of contract,. Associated federal regulations in the national organic Program, 7 C.F.R, 485 37... Provisions of the positive test results, the court of appeals concluded that the drift! Tort of trespass, however, is the intentional interference with rights of exclusive possession out of organic production an! The national organic Program, 7 C.F.R l Bhd MDA concluded that the overspray them... 'S spraying caused both of the land discretion to decertify, the also... And fallen game ) other jurisdictions johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief consistent with our holding today a nullity 2d 693 ( 2012 ):. As long as the innocent party asks for that remedy LLC v. Local 15 Int ' l.... Asserting that the Johnsons had offered sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment, 334 ( Minn.App farm another!