205.202(b), fail as a matter of law. 6521(a). 205.202(b) (2012). The OFPA also specifically provides that producers of organic products shall not apply materials to seeds or seedlings that are contrary to, or inconsistent with, the applicable organic certification program. 7 U.S.C. WebJohnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. EN. 205.202(b), fail as a matter of law, we reverse the court of appeals' reinstatement of those claims. 7 U.S.C. In both cases, the court of appeals held that such invasions do not, as a matter of law, constitute trespass. 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 regulation says nothing about what should happen if the residue testing shows less than five-percent contamination. We decline the Johnsons' invitation to abandon the traditional distinctions between trespass and nuisance law. And the OFPA and NOP would not need a provision allowing crops with minimum levels of pesticide on them (i.e., less than 5 percent) to be sold as organic because such crops would necessarily have been harvested from fields ineligible for organic production. 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. 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. Whether plaintiffstrespassclaim fails as a matter of law? 6504(2). The Johnsons do not allege that a tangible object invaded their land. Anderson v. State, Dep't of Natural Res., 693 N.W.2d 181, 186 (Minn. 2005). 205.202(b). The district court inferred too much from the regulation. Id. Id. The Johnsons sued the Cooperative on theories including trespass, nuisance, and negligence per se and sought damages and injunctive relief. In addition to these general provisions, the OFPA also establishes certain crop production practices that are prohibited when producers seek to sell products as organic. There would accordingly be no organic crops left that would be covered under section 205.671 of the NOP or 7 U.S.C. The court's reading makes no sense because no matter who applies the prohibited pesticide and no matter how the pesticide is applied, whether by drift or otherwise, the end product will be no less contaminated and no less in violation of regulations limiting such contamination. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. We decided in Wendinger that "invasive odors" that were emanating onto property from a neighboring confined-pig feeding operation could not be a trespass because the odors were part of transient fumes, which support an action for nuisance but not trespass. 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. 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. 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. of Mapleview, 293 Minn. 106, 10809, 196 N.W.2d 626, 62829 (1972); Huber v. City of Blue Earth, 213 Minn. 319, 322, 6 N.W.2d 471, 473 (1942). The Johnsons argue that the Cooperative is liable, under nuisance and negligence per se theories, for damages resulting from the destruction of these soybeans.16 Because the district court failed to address whether there were any genuine issues of material fact on this aspect of the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims, we hold that the court erred when it dismissed these claims. 6511(c)(2). The district court denied the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims based on the 2008 incidents because amendment would be futile. This ruling was based on the court's conclusions that Minnesota does not recognize a claim for trespass by particulate matter and that the Johnsons could not prove any negligence per se or nuisance damages based on 7 C.F.R. Oil Co. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 1670, 1680, 182 L.Ed.2d 678 (2012) (noting that courts are to consider questions of statutory interpretation by looking at phrases in the context of the entire statute). The district court granted summary judgment to Appellant and dismissed all of the Johnsons' claims. Should the agent determine that the residue came from the intentional application of a prohibited substance, the product may not be sold as organic. A link to your Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email 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. They asserted separately that some of the chemicals, presumably fertilizers, enhanced weed growth. See Ryan v. Hennepin Cnty., 224 Minn. 444, 448, 29 N.W.2d 385, 387 (1947) ( Injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself, a cause of action, and a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted. (citation omitted)). 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. 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. 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. 6520(a)(2). Email Address: 6511(c)(1). He plowed part of the alfalfa field under because it was "becoming choked with weeds and the alfalfa was very sick and poor.". This formulation of trespass, however, conflicts with our precedent defining the elements of trespass. of Aitkin, 266 N.W.2d 704, 705 (Minn.1978) (citation omitted); see generally 46 Dunnell Minn. Digest Trespass 1.02 (4th ed.2000). 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. Elec. App., decided July 25, 2011). For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the conduct about which the Johnsons complain does not constitute a trespass in Minnesota. It was also inconsistent with the OFPA because the Johnsons presented no evidence that any residue exceeded the 5 percent tolerance level in 7 C.F.R. We begin with a discussion of the tort of trespass. 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. 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400 . The Johnsons urge us, however, to construe the phrase applied to it to include actions of third parties, such as the pesticide drift that resulted from the Cooperative's spraying activity at issue here. Co., 104 Wash.2d 677, 709 P.2d 782 (Wash.1985)). WebPaynesville Farmers Union Coop. 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. 205.201(a) (2012) (The producer or handler must develop an organic production or handling system plan); 7 C.F.R. 18B.07, subd. He smelled chemicals in the air over his field, leaving him with "cottonmouth, headache and nausea" and his wife a headache and nausea. Organic farmers Oluf and Debra Johnson filed a civil suit alleging that the Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company sprayed a chemical pesticide that The same is true for the Johnsons' request for a permanent injunction. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 6263, 126 S.Ct. A party may amend a responsive pleading that has been served if that party has leave of the court, and leave "shall be freely given when justice so requires." 295 (1907)). Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Highview, 323 N.W.2d at 73. Kevin F. Gray, Matthew W. Moehrle, Rajkowski Hansmeier, Ltd., St. In summary, trespass claims address tangible invasions of the right to exclusive possession of land, and nuisance claims address invasions of the right to use and enjoyment of land. at 38889 (citing Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., 369 So.2d 523 (Ala.1979); Bradley v. Am. Remanded. Before discussing the factual background of this case, it is helpful to briefly summarize the organic farming regulations at issue. The Johnsons claimed that the pesticide drift caused them economic damages because they had to take the contaminated fields out of organic production for three years pursuant to 7 C.F.R. 205.200 (2012) (The producer or handler must comply with the applicable provisions); 7 C.F.R. 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. Similarly, section 205.400 does not support the Johnsons' proposed construction of section 205.202(b). 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. WebJohnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693 (2012): Case Brief Summary - Quimbee Study Aids Case Briefs Overview Casebooks Case Defendants pesticide drifted and contaminated plaintiffs Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993). 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003). 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.). I also dissent from the court's interpretation of 7 C.F.R. We last address the district court's denial of the Johnsons' permanent injunction request. In April 2010, the Johnsons moved to amend their complaint to include damages from the 2008 incidents. 205). Agency, http://www .epa.gov/pm/ (last updated June 28, 2012). exceeded the 5% tolerance limits established [under the federal organic-certification regulations], produce from these plants could have been sold as `organic'" We review the district court's interpretation of the organic-certification regulation de novo. 369 So.2d at 52526. KidCloverButterfly14. Arlo Vande Vegte (#112045) ARLO VANDE 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 distinction between trespass and nuisance should not be based on whether the object invading the land is tangible or intangible. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. More. . This determination was based on the court's conclusion that because there was no evidence that any chemical on the Johnsons' crops exceeded the 5 percent tolerance level in 7 C.F.R. Defendant was a company that sprayed pesticide on conventionally farmed fields adjacent to the plaintiffs fields. The proper distinction between trespass and nuisance should be the nature of the property interest affected. 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. Johnson, 802 N.W.2d at 39091. See 7 U.S.C. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The Court however held that the district court erred when it dismissed the Johnsons nuisance and negligence per se claims that were not grounded on section 205.202(b). at 388. The district court consequently denied the Johnsons' request for permanent injunctive relief. 6503(a) (directing the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an organic certification program for producers and handlers of agricultural products). v. Kandiyohi Cnty. 205.671confirms this interpretation. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. In the alternative, the Cooperative argues that if section 205.202(b) is ambiguous, analysis of the relevant canons of construction confirms its interpretation. WebAssistant Attorneys General . This is because the interference with possessory rights and interference with use and enjoyment rights are different. The OFPA provides important context for interpretation of the regulation because the NOP regulations were drafted to carry out the provisions of the OFPA. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. 205.203(b) (2012) (The producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility); 7 C.F.R. See 7 U.S.C. Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnson (Johnsons) are organic farmers. Claim this business. The Johnsons sought a permanent injunction under the nuisance statute, Minn.Stat. Webipad 6th gen silver 32gb with case $160 (wdc > Ashburn) 2.8mi hide this posting restore restore this posting. Actual damages are not an element of the tort of trespass. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnson (Johnsons) were organic farmers. The Johnsons took this action because they believed that the presence of any amount of pesticide on their organic fields prohibited them from selling crops harvested from these fields as organic. We hold that the phrase "applied to" in section 205.202(b) includes drift as an unintentional application of pesticide. 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). First, the language of section 205.202(b) is silent with respect to who applied the prohibited substances. We review a district court's denial of a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion. In Minnesota, a trespass is 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. All Am. 7 U.S.C. We consider each of these issues in turn. 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. 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 Johnsons' claim is one for nuisance, not trespass. 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. We disagree. 205.671. See, e.g., Bradley, 709 P.2d at 786, 791 (holding that the 3year trespass statute of limitations applied rather than the 2year nuisance statute of limitations). WebPDF State of Minnesota Supreme Court 20-72 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _____ JANET L. HIMSEL, ET AL., Petitioners, v. 4/9 LIVESTOCK, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. However, if that person were to cause car exhaust, which presumably dissipates quickly in the air, to enter a person's land, it would seem that a trespass would not occur. 205.202(b). 2(a)(1) (2010). Instead, they primarily complain that the liquid chemicals that the cooperative sprayed into the air from neighboring fields drifted, landed, and remained on the Johnsons' organic crops in detectable form, contaminating them. 6511(c)(2)(B). We review the district court's denial of a party's motion to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. Oluf Johnson complained to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) after the 2002 overspray. 205.202(b). 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. Because we conclude that the Johnsons' trespass claim and claims for damages based on 7 C.F.R. They alleged that the drift has caused "substantial inconveniences" because they are required to report the contamination and it affects their crop rotations, organic-farm planning, and record keeping. Bd. In summary, we conclude that the Johnsons' trespass claim, and nuisance and negligence per se claims based on 7 C.F.R. 205.202(b), before dismissing all of the Johnsons' claims, and that the district court had abused its discretion in denying the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims based on the 2008 incidents. Yes. 205, as the "organic food production law" of Minnesota). 7 C.F.R. And in order to receive certification, a producer must comply with the NOP. 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. The Johnsons base their construction on the use of the word application in 7 C.F.R. 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. 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. Unlike the plaintiffs in Wendinger, the Johnsons do not claim trespass based on transient odors. 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. The MDA concluded that drift from the Cooperative's spraying caused both of the positive test results. 205.202(b), remains viable. See Markham v. Cabell, 326 U.S. 404, 409, 66 S.Ct. WebFinal Research Paper Case Brief 1 Citation: Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W. 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. Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14, 22 (Minn.2011). Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, Appellant. Because the Johnsons' interpretation nullifies part of the OFPA and the NOP, that interpretation is not reasonable, and we decline to adopt it. 205.202(b), we hold that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend without first considering whether such amended claims could survive summary judgment. Get free summaries of new Minnesota Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. We therefore reverse the denial without prejudice for further consideration of the injunction on remand, offering no opinion about the merit of any other arguments for or against its issuance. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. 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.

Marin Alsop Family, Lafayette Bakery Nyc Croissant, Chef Bryan Woolley Biography, Articles J