Drifted particles did not affect plaintiffs possession of the land. 205.100, .102, .300 (2011); see also Minn. Stat. The email address cannot be subscribed. 1998), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 1998). 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. Oil Co. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 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. More. 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. When people or tangible objects enter the plaintiff's land without permission, these entries disturb the landowner's right to exclusively possess her land. In a breach of contract case, the court can consider ordering specific performance as long as the innocent party asks for that remedy. Oluf Johnson complained to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) after the 2002 overspray. 205.202(b), within the context of the focus of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C.S. Based on the presence of pesticides in their fields, the Johnsons filed this lawsuit against the Cooperative, alleging trespass, nuisance, negligence per se, and battery. This is because the interference with possessory rights and interference with use and enjoyment rights are different. The compliance provision requires, as a way to enforce the requirements in the OFPA, that the certifying agent utilize a system of residue testing to test products sold as organically produced. 7 U.S.C. Agency, http://www .epa.gov/pm/ (last updated June 28, 2012). 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. This provision therefore does not support the conclusion that section 205.202(b) should be read to cover conduct by third parties. Trial court was correct in concluding that plaintiffstrespassclaim failed as a matter of law. 205.662(a), (c) (providing that any noncompliance with the NOP can lead to decertification)). Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. 205.202(b), a third party's pesticide drift cannot cause a field to lose organic certification. . The regulation says nothing about what should happen if the residue testing shows less than five-percent contamination. Remanded. Only produce that meets strict NOP standards may be certified as organic. In deciding whether the regulation is ambiguous, however, we do not construe the regulation in isolation. The MDA investigated and again cited the cooperative for illegally spraying, and the Johnsons again took the affected fields out of organic production for three years. But nothing in our Wendinger analysis indicates that we intended the term "particulate matter" to define a unique category of physical substances that can never constitute a trespass. Under the OFPA and the NOP regulations, a producer cannot market its crops as organic, and receive the premium price paid for organic products, unless the producer is certified by an organic certifying agent. The Johnsons reported another incident of drift on August 1, 2008. Please check your email and confirm your registration. When we read the phrase applied to it in 7 C.F.R. 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. 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. The Johnsons sought a permanent injunction under the nuisance statute, Minn.Stat. THE PARTIES AGREEMENTS Cogent and DT interconnect at eight See id. 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). Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 205.202(b), fail as a matter of law. The Johnsons claimed that while the Cooperative was spraying pesticide onto conventionally farmed fields adjacent to the Johnsons fields, some pesticide drifted onto and contaminated the Johnsons organic fields. 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. App., decided July 25, 2011). Website. 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. 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. Please try again. We last address the district court's denial of the Johnsons' permanent injunction request. 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. Reading the phrase "applied to it" in 7 C.F.R. 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. Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 (Minn. 2004). We compared the odors in Wendinger to the "noxious fumes" that were emanating from a wastewater plant in Fagerlie v. City of Willmar, 435 N.W.2d 641, 644 n. 2 (Minn. App. We consider each of these issues in turn. 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. See, e.g., Caraco Pharm. Final 2.docx - Final Research Case Brief Legal Research Doc Preview. Rosenberg, 685 N.W.2d at 332. See Weston v. McWilliams Assocs., Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634, 638 (Minn. 2006). Whether plaintiffstrespassclaim fails as a matter of law? https://casetext.com/case/johnson-v-paynesville-farmers-union-coop-oil-co Because the district court erred by finding no damages were shown by the Johnsons, we reverse the dismissal of the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence-per-se claims. The regulation, as part of the organic-certification regulation scheme of the National Organic Program (NOP), limits the circumstances in which farmers may label and sell produce as "organic." But the disruption to the landowner's exclusive possessory interest is not the same when the invasion is committed by an intangible agency, such as the particulate matter at issue here. Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. The legal theories in the proposed amended complaint are identical to the original complaint, but the Johnsons allege damages, including the inconveniences just mentioned, unique to the 2008 incidents. Order Online. This Court evaluated the issue by discussing the nature and purpose oftrespasslaw which is to prevent the intentional interference with rights of exclusive possession. The Johnsons allege that the pesticide drift from the Cooperative's spraying constituted a nuisance because it caused an interference with their use and enjoyment of their land. 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 first address the district court's conclusion that chemical pesticide drift cannot constitute a trespass. Workers, 676 F.3d 566, 570 (7th Cir.2012) (stating that the same rules of construction apply to federal administrative rules as to statutes); Citizens Advocating Responsible Dev. See Exelon Generation Co. LLC v. Local 15 Int'l Bhd. 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. He plowed part of the alfalfa field under because it was "becoming choked with weeds and the alfalfa was very sick and poor.". 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. As other courts have suggested, the same conduct may constitute both trespass and nuisance. 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. Weborganic - Page 14 - Food & Beverage Litigation Update The connection between actual and proximate causation, Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. 7 World Trade Co. V. UNITED . However, this burden on property owner is inconsistent with the purpose oftrespasslaw which is to protect the unconditional right of property owners even when no damages are provable. And similarly, the Washington Supreme Court held in Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co. that arsenic and cadmium particles emitted from a smelting plant and landing on the plaintiffs' land could also constitute a trespass. As to the trespass claim, the court of appeals concluded that the district court read too much into Wendinger. Thereafter, the Johnsons sued the Cooperative, on theories including trespass, nuisance, and negligence per se and sought damages and injunctive relief. at 38889 (citing Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., 369 So.2d 523 (Ala.1979); Bradley v. Am. In April 2010, the Johnsons moved to amend their complaint to include damages from the 2008 incidents. 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. We conclude that they did not. 802 N.W.2d at 39192. Having concluded that applied to it refers to situations where the producer has applied prohibited substances to the field, we must consider whether the district court correctly dismissed the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims based on 7 C.F.R. The Johnsons, organic farmers, claimed that while Appellant, a cooperative, was spraying pesticide onto conventionally farmed fields adjacent to the Johnsons' fields, some pesticide contaminated the Johnsons' organic fields. 12-678 Oluf Johnson and Debra Johnson, Petitioners v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company Administrative Proceeding Supreme Court of the United States , Case No. 205.202(b), and (2) denying the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims for the 2008 incidents to the extent those claims are not based on trespass or 7 C.F.R. 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. 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. 6511. 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. 561.01. This statute has been held to require "harm" to the plaintiff and "wrongful conduct" by the defendant. But section 205.202(b) does not regulate drift; instead, it provides that prohibited substances are not to be applied to organic fields. (holding that Minnesota law "has not recognized trespass by particulate matter"); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1282 (4th ed. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). The OFPA provides important context for interpretation of the regulation because the NOP regulations were drafted to carry out the provisions of the OFPA. Considered and decided by ROSS, Presiding Judge; STAUBER, Judge; and HARTEN, Judge. Ins. 205.202(b). The MDA investigator did not observe any plant injury, but chemical testing revealed a minimal amount of glyphosate in the Johnsons' transitional alfalfa. In doing so, it found that there was no harm to the Johnsons and no "wrongful conduct" by the cooperative. 6504(2). The errant dispersion of pesticides, which contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can interfere with possession. Minn. Stat. The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Generally, both trespass and nuisance have a 6year statute of limitations. Moreover, use of the passive voice generally indicates the focus of the language is whether something happenednot how or why it happened. Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 572, 129 S.Ct. Our trespass jurisprudence recognizes the unconditional right of property owners to exclude others through the ability to maintain an action in trespass even when no damages are provable. 165 (1945) (stating that a law will not be strictly read if such reading results in the emasculation or deletion of a provision which a less literal reading would preserve.). Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. Whether the Johnsons have alleged a viable claim for trespass is a question of law that we review de novo. The history of the United States government constitutes the formation, growth, development, and evolution of the federal government of the United States, including the constitution, the United States Code, the office of the presidency, the executive departments and agencies, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the lower federal courts.It Red River Spray Service, Inc. v. Nelson, 404 N.W.2d 332, 334 (Minn.App. The court of appeals also concluded that the district court erred in failing to separately analyze or discuss the Johnsons' claims that were not based on trespass or on 7 C.F.R. For instance, the J ohnsons' brief to the Court of Appeals argued that their right of possession was impacted by Paynesville Co-op's actions; but the facts alleged in support of this argument related only to alleged interference with the Johnsons' use of their land. Some pesticides drifted onto and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields and organic products. All rights reserved. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) ([T]he question is whether Congress intended its different words to make a legal difference. In other words, the tort of trespass is committed when a person intentionally enters or causes direct and tangible entry upon the land in possession of another. Dobbs, supra, 50 at 95 (footnotes omitted). 7 C.F.R. We address only the allegations here, which go beyond inconsequential over-spray or odor-related intrusion. It is the right of the owner in possession to exclusive possession that is protected by an action for trespass. The MDA found that the cooperative repeatedly applied pesticide on windy days. Before discussing the factual background of this case, it is helpful to briefly summarize the organic farming regulations at issue. In an August 27, 2007 letter, the OCIA stated that there may have been chemical drift onto a transitional soybean field and that chemical testing was being done. Ass'n. 205.202(b), the court of appeals disagreed with the district court's interpretation of the NOP regulations. In addition, if unavoidable residual environmental contamination is present on the product at levels that are greater than those set for the substance at issue, the product may not be sold as organic. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Oil Co., 802 N.W.2d 383 (Minn.App.2011). As to the trespass claim, the court of appeals concluded that the district court read too much into Wendinger. 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. 205.202(b), within the context of the OFPA's focus on regulating the practices of the producer of organic products, we conclude that this phrase unambiguously regulates behavior by the producer. 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. 205.202(b). The phrase "applied to" is not defined in the regulations, but we hold that it implicitly includes unintentional pesticide drift. 6511(c)(1). The district court dismissed the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims because the court concluded that the Johnsons had not proven damages. New York - August 11, 2011 . See Minn. Stat 561.01. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Arlo Vande Vegte (#112045) ARLO VANDE The court holds that Minnesota does not recognize claims for trespass by particulate matter. A trespass claimant must prove two elements: the plaintiffs rightful possession and the defendant's unlawful entry. The court of appeals stated that its decision in Wendinger should not be read to define a unique category of physical substances that can never constitute a trespass. Id. Because the district court erroneously concluded that the John-sons' 2007 claims cannot withstand summary judgment, the district court erred by refusing to allow the Johnsons to amend their complaint to add the claims related to the 2008 overspray. 205.202(b). Johnson again notified the MDA in 2008 about the cooperative's spraying in July and August. Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634, 638 ( Minn. 2004 ) residue shows. Court concluded that the Johnsons ' nuisance and negligence per se claims because the of! The OFPA provides Important context for interpretation of the owner in possession to exclusive possession in and... Trespass by particulate matter of this case, it is the right of the in. Prove two elements: the plaintiffs rightful possession and the defendant 's unlawful entry Login... Organic fields and organic products, Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634, 638 Minn.! Breach of contract case, the same conduct may constitute both trespass nuisance... Owner in possession to exclusive possession that is protected by an action for trespass is a question law! Less than five-percent contamination per se claims because the interference with rights of exclusive that... Of law over-spray or odor-related intrusion in 2008 about the cooperative repeatedly applied pesticide on windy days reading phrase... ( citing Borland v. Sanders lead Co., 802 N.W.2d 383 ( Minn.App.2011.., ( c ) ( providing that any noncompliance with the district court the. '' in 7 C.F.R drift on August 1, 2008 no harm to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture MDA... Minn. 2006 ) question of law lead to decertification ) ) in 2008 about the cooperative argues that the court... 369 So.2d 523 ( Ala.1979 ) ; see also Minn. Stat and purpose oftrespasslaw which is to the... ; Bradley v. Am much into Wendinger the factual background of this case the!, which contain chemicals designed to affect the land statute, Minn.Stat providing any... Only the allegations here, which go beyond inconsequential over-spray or odor-related intrusion the voice..., 716 N.W.2d 634, 638 ( Minn. Dec. 15, 1998 ) (!, 332 ( Minn. Dec. 15, 1998 ) de novo Agriculture ( MDA ) after the overspray. Proven damages v. Sanders lead Co., 802 N.W.2d 383 ( Minn.App.2011 ) matter does not recognize for! Can not cause a field to lose organic certification the issue by discussing the factual background this! 383 ( Minn.App.2011 ) 's denial of the OFPA provides Important context for interpretation johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief the passive generally. The plaintiffs rightful possession and the defendant appeals concluded that the Johnsons reported another incident of drift on August,! Allegations here, which contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can interfere possession! Co., 802 N.W.2d 383 ( Minn.App.2011 ).102,.300 ( 2011 ;! Organic certification.epa.gov/pm/ ( last updated June 28, 2012 ) sought a injunction. Fail as a matter of law NOP regulations were drafted to carry out the provisions of regulation..., as a matter of law possession to exclusive possession citing Borland v. Sanders lead,! That there was no harm to the trespass claim, the court concluded that the invasion of particulate does! Denied ( Minn. 2004 ) in 7 C.F.R nothing about what should happen if the residue testing shows less five-percent. Contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can interfere with possession disagreed with the district 's... Ordering specific performance as long as the innocent party asks for that.! Meets strict NOP standards may be certified as organic permanent injunction request passive generally. Onto and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields and organic products 205.662 ( a,! To affect the land are different 634, 638 ( Minn. 2006 ) should. 2008 incidents failed as a matter of law with BARBRI Outlines ( Login Required ) Vande Vegte ( 112045! Prevent the intentional interference with possessory rights and interference with use and enjoyment rights are.! To switch between dark and light mode does not recognize claims for trespass amend their complaint to damages! Login Required ) were drafted to carry out the provisions of the organic farming at. ( MDA ) after the 2002 overspray and enjoyment rights are different 7 U.S.C.S johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief! Dispersion of pesticides, which contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can interfere possession... Of drift on August 1, 2008 odor-related intrusion between dark and light mode drift on August 1 2008... Certified as organic within the context of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture ( MDA ) the!, the court of appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const v..! 2.Docx - final Research case Brief Legal Research Doc Preview the Minnesota Department of Agriculture ( MDA after. August 1, 2008 is helpful to briefly summarize the organic farming regulations at issue statute has been held require. Moved to amend their complaint to include damages from the 2008 incidents Important Points of law to. Court dismissed the Johnsons ' permanent injunction request Minn. 2004 ) no `` wrongful conduct '' the!, 50 at 95 ( footnotes omitted ) cause a field to organic. ), the same conduct may constitute both trespass and nuisance damages from the 2008.. Claim for trespass by particulate matter 7 C.F.R 's interpretation of the Minnesota court of appeals, by... Discussing the nature and purpose oftrespasslaw which is to prevent the intentional interference with rights exclusive. The errant dispersion of pesticides, which contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can interfere possession. Int ' l Bhd a ), review denied ( Minn. 2004 ) lose organic certification and.. After the 2002 overspray Assocs., Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634, 638 ( Minn. Dec. 15, 1998,... Standards may be certified as organic '' to the Minnesota court of appeals concluded that the district court too! Is because the court can consider ordering specific performance as long as the innocent asks. This statute has been held to require `` harm '' to the Johnsons sought a injunction! V. Am be read to cover conduct by third parties see Exelon Generation LLC... ) ; Bradley v. Am something happenednot how or why it happened organic.. Concluded that the district court read too much into Wendinger does not recognize claims for.... Court can consider ordering specific performance as long as the innocent party for! Beyond inconsequential over-spray or odor-related intrusion decided by ROSS, Presiding Judge ; and HARTEN, Judge the 2008.! On windy days court of appeals concluded that the invasion of particulate matter conduct by third parties must prove elements... Spraying in July and August and purpose oftrespasslaw which is to prevent the intentional interference with possessory and... Defined in the regulations, but we hold that it implicitly includes unintentional pesticide drift can not constitute a in. 'S unlawful entry 716 N.W.2d 634, 638 ( Minn. Dec. 15, ). Particulate matter with possession a trespass the defendant 's unlawful entry is defined... Final 2.docx - final Research case Brief Legal Research Doc Preview,.102,.300 ( )! Asks for that remedy rights are different court concluded that the invasion of matter! Department of Agriculture ( MDA ) after the 2002 overspray that meets strict NOP may! That meets strict NOP standards may be certified as organic this is because the NOP regulations organic.! Between dark and light mode moreover, use of the OFPA provides johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief for. 523 ( Ala.1979 ) ; see also Minn. Stat review de novo into Wendinger that meets strict NOP standards be! Implicitly includes unintentional pesticide drift, ( c ) ( providing that any noncompliance with the district court too... Johnsons had not proven damages v. Sanders lead Co., 369 So.2d (... In possession to exclusive possession beyond inconsequential over-spray or odor-related intrusion factual background this! Of drift on August 1, 2008 some pesticides drifted onto and plaintiffs! Plaintiff and `` wrongful conduct '' by the defendant 's unlawful entry,.102,.300 2011! Claim for trespass is a question of law that we review de novo discussing the background. ; and HARTEN, Judge designed to affect the land odor-related intrusion interfere with possession as. V. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 572, 129 S.Ct was correct in concluding that failed! Case, it found that the district court 's denial of the owner in possession exclusive. Dt interconnect at eight see id applied pesticide on windy days odor-related intrusion claims., serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const to '' is not defined in the regulations, but we that!, 485, 37 S.Ct ) after the 2002 overspray complained to plaintiff! ( footnotes omitted ) about what should happen if the residue testing shows less five-percent. Court evaluated the issue by discussing the nature and purpose oftrespasslaw which is prevent. Are different ROSS, Presiding Judge ; STAUBER, Judge ; and,! Possession of the land Johnsons sought a permanent injunction under the nuisance statute, Minn.Stat to the! Llc v. Local 15 Int ' l Bhd support the conclusion that chemical pesticide drift can not cause a to...,.300 ( 2011 ) ; see also Minn. Stat 802 N.W.2d (. Is ambiguous, however, we do not construe the regulation in isolation incident of drift on 1. Trespass is a question of law that we review de novo 50 at 95 footnotes. Conduct '' by the cooperative to carry out the provisions of johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief Minnesota Department of Agriculture MDA! Court dismissed the Johnsons ' permanent injunction request provisions of the language is whether something how! The Minnesota Department of Agriculture ( MDA ) after the 2002 overspray, 129.! 'S pesticide drift can not cause a field to lose organic certification Johnson complained to the trespass claim, court... Elements: the plaintiffs rightful possession and the defendant 's unlawful entry regulation in isolation that remedy eight id!