of Ramsey, 323 N.W.2d 65, 73 n. 6 (Minn. 1982) (permitting recovery for items lost in flooding, replacement of items, and the "owner's time in coping with the water problems" caused by nuisance), the district court erred by granting summary judgment without addressing them. When people or tangible objects enter the plaintiff's land without permission, these entries disturb the landowner's right to exclusively possess her land. With respect to the nuisance claim, Minn.Stat. 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. The Johnsons reported another incident of drift on August 1, 2008. Agency, http://www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html (last updated June 15, 2012). Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 (Minn.2004). In other words, the Johnsons did not market soybeans harvested from this field as organic for an additional 3 years. (holding that Minnesota law "has not recognized trespass by particulate matter"); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1282 (4th ed. To the extent that the Johnsons' proposed amended complaint includes such claims, the district court properly denied the Johnsons' motion to amend. Minn. R. Civ. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997). Id. Of Elec. This provision therefore does not support the conclusion that section 205.202(b) should be read to cover conduct by third parties. The NOP regulation that specifically implements this compliance provision in the statute7 C.F.R. Ass'n. 6511(c)(2)(A) (2006) would not prohibit the product's sale as an organic product because the producer had not applied the prohibited pesticide. 205.202(b). The court looked outside Minnesota to support the holding it reached.8 Id. Minnesota has adopted the OFPA and the NOP as its state organic farming law. Whether the Johnsons have alleged a viable claim for trespass is a question of law that we review de novo. We last address the district court's denial of the Johnsons' permanent injunction request. , 132 S.Ct. 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. 662 N.W.2d at 550. WebCase Nos. 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. 31.925 (2010) (adopting the federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 205.202(b), unambiguously means that the organic farmer intentionally applied the prohibited substance to the field. 205.202(b). 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) ([T]he question is whether Congress intended its different words to make a legal difference. See 7 U.S.C. If the intrusion is to the interest in use and enjoyment of property, the law of nuisance applies.); see also J.D. Trespassclaims address only tangible invasions of the right to exclusive possession of land. But the Johnsons argue that Bradley and Borland reflect the modern view of trespass and urge us to likewise abandon the traditional distinctions between trespass and nuisance when considering invasions by particulate matter. Whether plaintiffstrespassclaim fails as a matter of law? 205.202(b). You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. See 7 U.S.C. A trespass claimant must prove two elements: the plaintiffs rightful possession and the defendant's unlawful entry. PLST. 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. 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. 5 were here. 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. Before discussing the factual background of this case, it is helpful to briefly summarize the organic farming regulations at issue. Because the Johnsons did not apply pesticides to the field, the Cooperative argues that section 205.202(b) does not restrict the Johnsons' sale of organic products. In both cases, the court of appeals held that such invasions do not, as a matter of law, constitute trespass. 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 district court relied on a phrase in our decision in Wendinger and dismissed the trespass claim, but we think the district court read too much into our specific wording in that case. https://casetext.com/case/johnson-v-paynesville-farmers-union-coop-oil-co 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. There would accordingly be no organic crops left that would be covered under section 205.671 of the NOP or 7 U.S.C. No Minnesota case has addressed whether unwanted pesticide drift from a targeted field to an adjacent otherwise organic farming operation can constitute a trespass. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 2012). 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. 205.202(b) (2012). 205 .202(b). 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. Hence, the district court did not err in dismissing respondents' nuisance and negligence per se claims based on section 205.202(b). 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. The district court therefore erred by concluding that the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law. To prove a negligence claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant breached a duty of care that proximately caused the plaintiff damage. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Unlike the plaintiffs in Wendinger, the Johnsons do not claim trespass based on transient odors. To the extent that the court of appeals' decision would reinstate those claims and allow the Johnsons to amend their complaint to include those claims for the 2008 incidents of pesticide drift, we reverse. WebPaynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. EN English Deutsch Franais Espaol Portugus Italiano Romn Nederlands Latina Dansk Svenska Norsk Magyar Bahasa Indonesia Trke Suomi Latvian Lithuanian esk Unknown 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. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Organic farmers Oluf and Debra Johnson filed a civil suit alleging that the Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company sprayed a chemical pesticide that drifted from pesticide-targeted fields onto theirs, and that this prevented them from selling their crops under a federal nonpesticide "organic" certification. One of these specific practices provides that in order to be sold as organic, the product must not be produced on land to which any prohibited substances, including synthetic chemicals, have been applied during the 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural products. 7 U.S.C. 205.400. 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. Farmers Union Co Op No 2 Lot F26 Davenport 2015 Farmers union Because those rest on erroneous conclusions of law, the district court's reason for denying the injunction fails. Prot. The court reversed the Court of Appeal in part and affirmed in part and remanded the case to the trial court to determine thenuisanceclaim. This action involves alleged pesticide contamination of organic farm fields in central Minnesota. WebCase 1:15-cv-01632-LMB-IDD Document 22 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 20 PageID# 272. 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). Organic farmers Oluf and Debra Johnson filed a civil suit alleging that the Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company sprayed a chemical pesticide that In sum, we disagree with the district court that chemical pesticide drift cannot, because of its nature, constitute a trespass. The Supreme Court (1) concluded that the Johnsons' trespass claim and claim for damages based on 7 C.F.R. Drifted particles did not affect plaintiffs possession of the land. Schroeder v. St. Louis Cnty., 708 N.W.2d 497, 507 (Minn. 2006). 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. See 7 U.S.C. As to the negligence per se and nuisance claims based on 7 C.F.R. Considered and decided by ROSS, Presiding Judge; STAUBER, Judge; and HARTEN, Judge. 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. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003). And we rely on the district court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Because the regulations and commentary fail to expressly state what happens if drift causes a less-than-five-percent contamination to an organic farm, we assume that the certifying agent has the discretion to decertify or not decertify the field. When we read the phrase applied to it in 7 C.F.R. 205.671. 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). This is because the interference with possessory rights and interference with use and enjoyment rights are different. 7 U.S.C. The distinct language in section 205.202(b) is striking in comparison to these provisions. 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. 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).