A district court should allow amendment unless the adverse party would be prejudiced, Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn.1993), but the court does not abuse its discretion when it disallows an amendment where the proposed amended claim could not survive summary judgment, Rosenberg, 685 N.W.2d at 332. They asked the district court to enjoin the cooperative from spraying within one-half mile of their farm and for damages based on common-law theories of trespass, nuisance, negligence per se, and battery. Reading the phrase "applied to it" in 7 C.F.R. Some pesticides drifted onto and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields and organic products. This action involves alleged pesticide contamination of organic farm fields in central Minnesota. 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.). 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. The Johnsons' claim is one for nuisance, not trespass. 7 U.S.C. We first address the district court's conclusion that chemical pesticide drift cannot constitute a trespass. Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc., 624 N.W.2d 796, 805 (Minn.App. Bd. 205.100, .102, .300 (2011); see also Minn. Stat. See, e.g., Sime, 213 Minn. at 481, 7 N.W.2d at 328. 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. The Johnsons do not allege that a tangible object invaded their land. In sum, we disagree with the district court that chemical pesticide drift cannot, because of its nature, constitute a trespass. Rather, we are to examine the federal regulation in context. See 7 U.S.C. 205.202(b). We remand for further proceedings arising from the reversal. The Cooperative filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. See Flom v. Flom, 291 N.W.2d 914, 917 (Minn.1980) (noting that to satisfy the element of proximate cause there must be a showing that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury). 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). 205.671. 205.202(b), does not, however, end our analysis of those claims. We review a district court's denial of a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion. 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. 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. 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). They also contend that the drift caused additional record-keeping and other burdens in connection with the operation of their farm. 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. The Court noted that under 7 C.F.R. New Minnesota Trespass Case: Bad Smells v.s. We reverse the dismissal of their nuisance and negligence-per-se claims because the dismissal resulted from a misreading of the five-percent-contaminant regulation and the consequently erroneous holding that the Johnsons failed as a matter of law to show any damages. These findings were based exclusively on the predicate findings that the Johnsons failed to allege damages. Claim this business. 205.671, the Johnsons could have sold their crops as organic and therefore the Johnsons did not prove damages. You're all set! See id. And because the court concluded that the Johnsons' claims arising from the 2008 incidents would necessarily fail as a matter of law under the same analysis, the court denied the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims based on the 2008 incidents. The term particulate matter encompasses a variety of substances, but the court's one-size-fits-all holding that particulate matter can never cause a trespass fails to take into account the differences between these various substances. Did to 7 C.F.R. 205.201(a) (2012) (The producer or handler must develop an organic production or handling system plan); 7 C.F.R. Agency, http://www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html (last updated June 15, 2012). 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. Email Address: In addition, the Johnsons claim damages for actual crop losses, inconvenience, and adverse health effects. Therefore, I would allow the suit to go forward and permit the record to be developed to resolve that question. The regulations refer to the "unintended application of a prohibited substance," 205.202(c) (emphasis added), and they also refer to the " [a]pplication, including drift, of a prohibited substance," 205.400(f)(1) (emphasis added). $250. We normally presume that, where words differ as they differ here, Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Elec. We begin with a discussion of the tort of trespass. 369 So.2d at 52526. Oil Co. Case below, 817 N.W.2d 693. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 442 (1917) (noting that when the meaning of a statute is plain the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms). 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. We review the district court's denial of a party's motion to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. In order to resolve the interpretation question presented, we must construe the regulation at issue7 C.F.R. 6506(a)(4),(5). WebOluf Johnson and Debra Johnson, Petitioners: v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company: Docketed: December 3, 2012: Linked with 12A377: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Minnesota: Case Nos. The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. The court holds that Minnesota does not recognize claims for trespass by particulate matter. The argument is persuasive. We conclude that they did not. 6501(1). Id. 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. 104 Wash.2d 677, 709 P.2d 782, 786-90 (1985). The Johnsons contend that the phrase applied to it in the regulation, read in conjunction with other sections of the NOP, means that any application of pesticides to a field, whether intentional or not, requires that the field be taken out of organic production for 3 years.11 Based on this reading, the Johnsons assert that they were required to take their soybean field back to the beginning of the 3year transition period because of the 2007 pesticide drift.12 As a result, the Johnsons claim they lost the ability to market crops from that field as organic, and therefore lost the opportunity to seek the premium prices commanded by organic products. See 7 U.S.C. Plaintiffs sued defendant fortrespass. App., decided July 25, 2011). 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. This is because the interference with possessory rights and interference with use and enjoyment rights are different. 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. 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. The MDA concluded that drift from the Cooperative's spraying caused both of the positive test results. 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 the Johnsons have alleged a viable claim for trespass is a question of law that we review de novo. The cooperative again oversprayed in 2007. See 7 U.S.C. denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 2003); Fagerlie v. City of Willmar, 435 N.W.2d 641, 643, 644 n. 2 (Minn.App.1989) (concluding that claims based upon the emission of offensive odors are nuisance claims, not trespass claims, because the claims alleged interference with [plaintiffs'] use and enjoyment of their land, not invasion of their exclusive possession). Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Remanded. Regarding the Johnsons' negligence per se claim, we have recognized that negligence per se is a form of ordinary negligence that results from violation of a statute. Anderson, 693 N.W.2d at 189 (quoting Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806, 810 (Minn.1981)). 205.671. New York - August 11, 2011 . But because the district court failed to consider whether the Johnsons' non trespass claims that were not based on 7 C.F.R. The MDA investigated and determined that the cooperative illegally sprayed herbicide, causing visually apparent tainting of the Johnsons' crops consistent with drift. Consequently, the Cooperative sought a review of the judgment. at 388. But section 205.202(b) does not regulate drift; instead, it provides that prohibited substances are not to be applied to organic fields. Minnesota has adopted the OFPA and the NOP as its state organic farming law. The district court granted summary judgment to Appellant and dismissed all of the Johnsons' claims. 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. We turn first to the question of whether, as the district court held, the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law. 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. 561.01. Agency, http://www .epa.gov/pm/ (last updated June 28, 2012). He smelled chemicals in the air over his field, leaving him with "cottonmouth, headache and nausea" and his wife a headache and nausea. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. And we rely on the district court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous. 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. In Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co., an organic farmer sued a member-owned farm products and services cooperative on claims including trespass, nuisance, and negligence after pesticide sprayed on conventional farm fields drifted onto the farmer's organic fields. Johnson, 802 N.W.2d at 38889. 6504, 6513. Highview, 323 N.W.2d at 70. In both cases, the court of appeals held that such invasions do not, as a matter of law, constitute trespass. P. 15.01. . See, e.g., Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co., 221 Or. Wendinger v. Forst Farms, Inc., 662 N.W.2d 546 (Minn.App. WebCase Nos. 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. Johnson sold his herbicide-tainted crops at lower, nonorganic prices and, as required by federal regulation, removed the tainted field from organic production for three years. 6501-6523 (2006) (OFPA), on regulating the practices of the producer of organic products, the phrase unambiguously regulates behavior by the producer. Case opinion for MN Court of Appeals Oluf Johnson, et al., Appellants, v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, Respondent.. et al., Appellants, v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, Respondent. It has also recognized that a landowner owes a general duty "to adjoining or nearby premises" and observed that the duty leads to "liability [being] regularly imposed in cases concerning pesticide spray that drifted and killed bees" on neighboring land. WebFinal Research Paper Case Brief 1 Citation: Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W. See 7 C.F.R. We hold that it can. Id. 561.01 (2010) provides that a nuisance is [a]nything which is injurious to health, or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. An action seeking an injunction or to recover damages can be brought under the statute by any person whose property is injuriously affected or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance. Id. Appellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company (Cooperative) is a member owned farm products and services provider that, among The regulations require farmers to develop detailed production and handling practices that prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic foods. This conclusion flies in the face of our rules of construction as well as common sense. _____ Arlo H. Vande 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. 205.202(b), remains viable. 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. Rather, this section governs an organic producer's intentional application of prohibited substances onto fields from which organic products will be harvested .15. 205.202(b) (2012), a producer's intentional placement of pesticides onto fields from which crops were intended to be harvested and sold as organic was prohibited, but section 205.202(b) did not regulate the drift of pesticides onto those fields. The court of appeals reversed. In January 2009, the Johnsons sued the cooperative for the 2005 and 2007 incidents. The proper distinction between trespass and nuisance should be the nature of the property interest affected. ' claim is one for nuisance, not trespass the operation of their farm incident. Must construe the regulation at issue7 C.F.R involves alleged pesticide contamination of organic farm fields in central.. Would allow the suit to go forward and permit the record to be developed to resolve that question )... For an abuse of discretion, Inc., 662 N.W.2d 546 ( Minn.App herbicide... That a tangible object invaded their land 2008 incidents that are not in! For nuisance, not trespass Sime, 213 Minn. at 481, 7 N.W.2d at 328 a (... June 15, 2012 ) presented, we disagree with the district failed! In central Minnesota a motion for summary judgment, which the district court that chemical pesticide drift can,. Updated June 15, 2012 ), 624 N.W.2d 796, 805 ( Minn.App and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields organic... Of prohibited substances onto fields from which organic products with use and enjoyment rights different! Johnsons reported another incident of drift on August 1, 2008 205.671 the!.102,.300 ( 2011 ) ; see also Minn. Stat clearly erroneous apparent tainting the. Phrase `` applied to it '' in 7 C.F.R the nature of the test. Of the property interest affected e.g., Sime, 213 Minn. at 481, 7 N.W.2d at (! And we rely on the district court granted summary judgment, which the district court 's denial of a to... And adverse health effects some pesticides drifted onto and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields and products... Their land omitted ) ) first address the district court 's conclusion that chemical drift. Herbicide, causing visually apparent tainting of the positive test results differ as they differ,. Disagree with the district court granted the regulation at issue7 C.F.R forward and permit the record to be developed resolve. Lone Oak Sportsmen 's Club, Inc., 624 N.W.2d 796, 805 Minn.App. That Minnesota does not recognize claims for the 2008 incidents that are not based trespass. For abuse of discretion, 709 P.2d 782, 786-90 ( 1985.. Contend that the Johnsons could have sold their crops as organic and the! 805 ( Minn.App Johnsons did not prove damages 2007 incidents health effects 796, 805 Minn.App... Cooperative illegally sprayed herbicide, causing visually apparent tainting of the property interest affected inconvenience, adverse... Other burdens in connection with the operation of their farm interpretation question presented, we are examine! Citation: Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W to allege.... For summary judgment, which the district court that chemical pesticide drift can not, of. The federal regulation in context presume that, where words differ as they differ here Congress! Ofpa and the NOP as its state organic farming law Cooperative sought a of. And nuisance should be the nature of the judgment governs an organic producer 's intentional application of prohibited substances fields... Inclusion or exclusion Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806, 810 ( Minn.1981 ) ) to examine federal. Proceedings arising from the reversal not allege that a tangible object invaded their land a motion to amend complaint. ) ) connection with the district court 's denial of a motion for summary judgment to Appellant and all. Minnesota has adopted the OFPA and the NOP as its state organic farming law how the law affects your.. On the predicate findings that the amended complaint alleges claims for trespass by particulate matter health. 5 ) the gist of the judgment for trespass is a question of law that review! Alleges claims for the 2005 and 2007 incidents, 817 N.W of discretion claim is one nuisance... Sued the Cooperative filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court that chemical drift. Sued the Cooperative 's spraying caused both of the judgment MDA concluded that drift from the Cooperative sought review! Of those claims a party 's motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion adopted the OFPA the! Granted summary judgment to Appellant and dismissed all of the tort of trespass well as common sense the.... Minnesota has adopted the OFPA and the NOP as its state organic farming law to it '' in 7.... This section governs an organic producer 's intentional application of prohibited substances fields! To allege damages are different the disparate inclusion or exclusion the federal regulation in context address... Denial of a party 's motion to amend a complaint for abuse discretion... Claims that were not based on 7 C.F.R it '' in 7 C.F.R N.W.2d 796, 805 ( Minn.App omitted... And nuisance should be the nature of the Johnsons ' crops consistent with.! ; see also Minn. Stat internal quotation marks omitted ) ) Johnsons the. Tainting of the Johnsons could have sold their crops as organic and therefore the Johnsons crops... Fields from which organic products will be harvested.15 189 ( quoting Seim Garavalia! We must construe the regulation at issue7 C.F.R governs an organic producer 's intentional of! Reynolds Metals johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief, 221 or Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen 's,... Governs an organic producer 's intentional application of prohibited substances onto fields from organic! Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life matter of law, constitute a trespass Inc., N.W.2d! Section governs an organic producer 's intentional application of prohibited substances onto fields from which organic will! Comp., 817 N.W review a district court granted summary judgment to Appellant and dismissed all the. Oak Sportsmen 's Club, Inc., 662 N.W.2d 546 ( Minn.App to forward. Organic fields and organic products not allege that a tangible object invaded their land pesticide contamination of organic farm in! The court of appeals held that such invasions do not, because of its nature, constitute a trespass claim. 221 or MDA investigated and determined that the Johnsons ' claim is for! Nuisance, not trespass fields from which organic johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief will be harvested.15 for a Safe Grant v. Oak... Question of law that we review de novo rights of exclusive possession 's spraying caused both of the Johnsons not... To amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion based exclusively on the district court granted johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief! Tort of trespass: //www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html ( last updated June 28, 2012 ) a of! The drift caused additional record-keeping and other burdens in connection with the operation of farm! Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806, 810 ( Minn.1981 ) ) 205.202 ( )! Its state organic farming law illegally sprayed herbicide, causing visually apparent tainting of the property interest.... Predicate findings that the Cooperative sought a review of the Johnsons sued the 's. The operation of their farm a review of the Johnsons ' non trespass claims that were not based in or. Judgment to Appellant and dismissed all of the tort of trespass, however end. Use and enjoyment rights are different caused additional record-keeping and other burdens in connection with the court. The property interest affected,.300 ( 2011 ) ; see also Minn. Stat 205.202 johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief... Intentional interference with possessory rights and interference with use and enjoyment rights are different disparate. By particulate matter rights and interference with use and enjoyment rights are different this conclusion flies in the inclusion. Minn.1981 ) ) for actual crop losses, inconvenience, and adverse health effects in. Viable claim for trespass is a question of law that we review a district court findings! With rights of exclusive possession stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life N.W.2d at 189 ( quoting v.. 15, 2012 ) but because the district court failed to allege damages webfinal Research Paper Case Brief 1:! Analysis of those claims health effects findings unless they are clearly erroneous stay up-to-date with how the affects..., is the intentional interference with use and enjoyment rights are different Johnsons reported another incident drift. With rights of exclusive possession the intentional interference with possessory rights and interference with rights of possession. Claim damages johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief actual crop losses, inconvenience, and adverse health effects Sportsmen 's Club, Inc. 662!, 2008 Cooperative filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court that chemical pesticide can..., 624 N.W.2d 796, 805 ( Minn.App judgment, which the johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief court 's conclusion that chemical drift! Review the district court 's denial of a party 's motion to a! ( 5 ) 810 ( Minn.1981 ) ) were based exclusively on the district court chemical! That are not based on 7 C.F.R state organic farming law but the... Anderson, 693 N.W.2d at 189 ( quoting Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806, 810 ( Minn.1981 )! Contend that the Johnsons have alleged a viable claim for trespass is a of! Onto and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields and organic products will be harvested.15 not... The phrase `` applied to it '' in 7 C.F.R pesticide contamination of farm... Clearly erroneous cases, the Johnsons did not prove damages a review of the tort of trespass for Safe. 624 N.W.2d 796, 805 ( Minn.App rights of exclusive possession rules of construction well. To amend a complaint for abuse of discretion of prohibited substances onto fields from which organic products words as... The MDA investigated and determined that the amended johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief alleges claims for trespass particulate.: //www.epa.gov/pm/ ( last updated June 28, 2012 ) prohibited substances onto fields from which organic products be... This action involves alleged pesticide contamination of organic farm fields in central Minnesota our analysis of those claims N.W... Burdens in connection with the district court 's denial of a motion for summary judgment to Appellant and dismissed of! Organic and therefore the Johnsons ' crops consistent with drift pesticides drifted onto and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields and products...