These findings were based exclusively on the predicate findings that the Johnsons failed to allege damages. WebMinnesota.gov Portal / mn.gov // Minnesota's State Portal Considered and decided by ROSS, Presiding Judge; STAUBER, Judge; and HARTEN, Judge. We consider each of these issues in turn. 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. 6508(a). 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. Both those cases and this one, unlike Wendinger, involved the dispersion of substances that entered into and settled onto land in discernable and allegedly damaging deposits. 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. 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. After receiving these test results, the Johnsons took the affected alfalfa field out of organic production for an additional 3 years. Id. 205.202(b). 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 three years preceding the harvest. 2. Chemical Spray If the land is under lease, the lessee might be the person who has 774 F.3d 1185 - DRB NO. 205, as the "organic food production law" of Minnesota). 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"). But the district court should deny a motion to amend a complaint when the proposed claim could not survive a summary-judgment motion. 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 (Minn.App. 561.01. 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. 7 U.S.C. This is an appeal from summary judgment. In the absence of actual damages, the trespasser is liable for nominal damages. A10-1596& A10-2135 State of Minnesota Supreme Court Oluf Johnson and Debra Johnson, vs. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, APPELLANT'S BRIEF AND ADDENDUM Date of Filing of Court of Appeals Decision: July 25, 2011 Kevin F. Gray (#185516) Respondents, Appellant. As to the trespass claim, the court of appeals concluded that the district court read too much into Wendinger. 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 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. 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. Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 (Minn. 2004). v. Kandiyohi Cnty. The Johnsons seek loss of profits under both the nuisance and negligence per se claims based on their alleged inability to market their crops as organic under 7 C.F.R. See Rosenberg, 685 N.W.2d at 332. And [w]hile the existence of [causation] is usually a question of fact for the jury, when reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion, it is a question of law. Lietz v. N. States Power Co., 718 N.W.2d 865, 872 (Minn.2006) (quoting Canada v. McCarthy, 567 N.W.2d 496, 506 (Minn.1997)). . of Comm'rs, 713 N.W.2d 817, 828 n. 9 (Minn.2006) (noting that administrative regulations are governed by the same rules of construction that apply to statutes); cf. There is no dispute about the Johnsons' rightful possession of their fields. 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. The district court granted summary judgment in the cooperative's favor and dismissed all of the Johnsons' claims. We last address the district court's denial of the Johnsons' permanent injunction request. We have recognized nuisance claims when a plaintiff can show that the defendant's conduct caused an interference with the use or enjoyment of the plaintiff's property. Johnson again contacted the MDA, and after investigating the MDA required Johnson to plow under a 175-foot wide strip of soybeans running the entire length of his field. (Emphasis added). 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) ([T]he question is whether Congress intended its different words to make a legal difference. Foods, Inc. v. Cnty. In other words, the Johnsons did not market soybeans harvested from this field as organic for an additional 3 years. 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. . Among numerous other requirements, the NOP provides that land from which crops are intended to be sold as organic must [h]ave had no prohibited substances applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop. 7 C.F.R. 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400 . The regulations require farmers to develop detailed production and handling practices that prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic foods. 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. The MDA concluded that drift from the Cooperative's spraying caused both of the positive test results. Thus, while the court concludes that invasion by an intangible object never interferes with a property owner's possessory rights, I conclude that in some circumstances it may, particularly when that intangible object is actually a substance that settles on the land and damages it. Moreover, it is not necessary for us to depart from our traditional understanding of trespass because other causes of actionnuisance and negligenceprovide remedies for the type of behavior at issue in this case. 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. The Cooperative filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Oil Co., 802 N.W.2d 383 (Minn.App.2011). In this section, the NOP requires that producers who have been certified as organic create buffers between the fields from which organic products will be harvested and other fields. https://casetext.com/case/johnson-v-paynesville-farmers-union-coop-oil-co Rather, this section governs an organic producer's intentional application of prohibited substances onto fields from which organic products will be harvested .15. PDF United States Court of Appeals The plaintiffs were organic farmers who alleged that 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.). The Environmental Protection Agency defines particulate matter as a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. United States Envtl. In doing so, it found that there was no harm to the Johnsons and no "wrongful conduct" by the cooperative. Defendant claimed that the invasion of particulate matter does not constitute atrespassin Minnesota as a matter of law. 709 P.2d at 784, 790. 51, 602 N.W.2d 215, 21819 (Mich.Ct.App.1999) ([P]ossessory rights to real property include as distinct interests the right to exclude and the right to enjoy, violations of which give rise to the distinct causes of action respectively of trespass and nuisance. (citing Keeton, supra, 87)); John Larkin, Inc. v. Marceau, 184 Vt. 207, 959 A.2d 551, 555 (Vt.2008) (holding that landowner who sprayed pesticide on his land that drifted onto plaintiff's land did not commit trespass because there was no evidence that the pesticide interfered with the plaintiff's right to exclusive possession of his land). 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 To prove a negligence claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant breached a duty of care that proximately caused the plaintiff damage. Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 (Minn.2004). 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. Evidently, under the court's reading of the regulations, if a third party intentionally applies a prohibited pesticide to an organic farm field in a quantity sufficient to leave a residue that violates the regulation, 7 U.S.C. 6503(a) (directing the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an organic certification program for producers and handlers of agricultural products). Greenwood v. Evergreen Mines Co., 220 Minn. 296, 312, 19 N.W.2d 726, 73435 (1945). 205.671confirms this interpretation. 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. The MDA also reported that the chemicals diflufenzopyr and glyphosate were not present. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997). We first address the district court's conclusion that chemical pesticide drift cannot constitute a trespass. The states may adopt the federal standards or they may impose more restrictive requirements governing products sold as organic. This formulation of trespass, however, conflicts with our precedent defining the elements of trespass. 65016523 (2006) (OFPA), and the associated federal regulations in the National Organic Program, 7 C.F.R. 561.01 (2010) (stating that a nuisance action "may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance"); Anderson, 693 N.W.2d at 189-91 (requiring damages for a negligence-per-se action). . 205.400(f)(1). 18B.07, subd. 205.202(c) and 7 C.F.R. 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. 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." Minnesota has adopted the OFPA and the NOP as its state organic farming law. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. 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. That section states only that if "residue testing detects prohibited substances at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environ-mental Protection Agency's tolerance for the specific residue detected or unavoidable residual environmental contamination, the agricultural product must not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced."