Ag Law Case Annotations :: Civil Liabilities

Gates v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., No. 08-3003 (10th Cir. Oct. 14, 2009)(defendant's placement of cell phone antenna on electricity transmission tower located on plaintiff's property constituted (under Texas law) permanent rather than temporary trespass because neither existence nor nature of nuisance changed over time; result is that any alleged injury occurred before plaintiff acquired real estate at issue and any cause of action vested in property owner at time of injury; thus, plaintiff lacked standing to sue).

Hickerson v. State, No. 08-1033 (AET), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95067 (D. N.J. Oct. 13, 2009)(plaintiff operates commercial organic orchard on leased land adjacent to public land on which hunting occurs and claims that his farming activities have been harmed by lead shot from firearms discharged onto the farming property by making plaintiff unable to meet federal standards for organic production and allowable poisons in food; on various motions for summary judgment, plaintiff's substantive due process claim denied - plaintiff not alleging that defendant has banned plaintiff from being an organic farmer; plaintiff's procedural due process claim denied - plaintiff failed to show that defendant deprived plaintiff of protected property right; plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim denied - claim not ripe).

Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, No. 08-61028, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 22442 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2009)(plaintiff liable for $6,300 payment to estate of employee who died in fire started by employee's blowtorch when pallet of frozen chicken fell on him; structure on which frozen chickens stored unstable).

Fina v. Hennarichs, No. 4D08-1290 (Fla. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2009)(plaitiffs (married couple) liable for fatal injuries sustained by teenage friend of plaintiffs while riding son's ATV; jury determination that plaintiffs 70 percent at fault upheld; plaintiffs disregarded warning label and manual made consequences of such disregard foreseeable).

Able v. Minvielle, et al., No. 09-364, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 1700 (La. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2009)(plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed in wrongful death suit against defendants, owner and tenant of farm ground, for death of plaintiff's son sustained during ATV accident while trespassing on defendant owner's land denied; defendant immune from liability under state law because plaintiff failed to establish elements of gross negligence).

Westerm New York Land Conservancy, Inc. v. Cullen, et al., No. 1173 CA 08-02034, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6788 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 2, 2009)(compensatory and punitive damages awarded to plaintiff for defendant's non-permissive use of plaintiff's property to transport construction materials onto defendant's property; defendant cut down plaintiff's trees, planted non-native trees and enlarged a pond; treble damages not awarded because plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence concerning stumpage value).

Wojcik, et al. v. Pratt, et al., No. 24583, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 4372 (Ohio Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2009)(construction of pond was single act the created a continuing trespass; four-year statute of limitations inapplicable).

Pennsylvania Professional Dog Breeders Association, et al. v. Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, No. 1:CV-09-1644, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90346 (M.D. Penn. Sept. 30, 2009)(plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction concerning Pennsylvania Dog Law denied; plaintiff alleged that certain provisions of the Dog Law require the promulgation of additional regulations).

Boyd v. Moore, et al., No. 08-CA-30, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 4275 (Ohio Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2009)(excavator cut electrical and telephone lines while digging fencepost holes which created an electrical "surge" and caused damages to an adjacent business - a tanning salon; excavator liable on negligence per se theory for violation of state statute which required excavators to notify Ohio Utilities Protection Service (OUPS) before digging; statute not intended for sole benefit of OUPS and imposes a specific, non-delegable duty on excavators with purposes of protecting the public and underground utilities; trial court judgment against landowner for $13,378.50 in compensatory damages and $500 in punitive damages upheld, but trial court judgment finding excavator not liable reversed and case remanded).

Polos v. Shields, et al., No. E2008-02425-COA-R3-CV, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 625 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2009)(fenceline, adverse possession case; encroaching fence posts must be relocated to boundary line, but trial court judgment limiting relocation to the fence posts which encroached six inches or more reversed).

Thornsberry v. Thornsberry Investments, Inc, et al., No. SD29348, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1240 (Mo. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2009)(plaintiff, a veterinarian, was injured while performing veterinary services for defendant and a livestock auction; defendant, as plaintiff's direct employer was plaintiff's "immediate employer" and is primarily liable to pay plaintiff's worker's compensation benefits and defendant not entitled to indemnity from livestock auction). 

Leopold v. Boone, No. 06A04-0904-CV-205, 2009 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2009)(plaintiff suffered severe brain injury from bicycle crash caused by dogs owned by defendant's tenant that ran from the leased property onto public highway where plaintiff was bicycling; trial court judgment for defendant affirmed - defendant did not owe a duty to the plaintiff; plaintiff failed to raise nuisance claim at trial and precluded from raising it on appeal).

Beggs v. Griffith, No. 5-08-0083, 2009 Ill. App. LEXIS 793 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2009)(plaintiff, prospective buyer of horse, was injured when knocked over by horse; jury verdict for plaintiff upheld - defendant in possession and control of horse at time of injury and solicited the plaintiff as a buyer; to the extent that insurance payment of $2,000 amounted to double recovery, there was nothing in the insurance policy, in public policy, or the law that would prevent the court's award).

Levinson, et al. v. Owens, et al., 176 Cal. App. 4th 1534, 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 779 (2009)(defendant cattle ranchers not liable for plaintiff's personal injuries sustained as a guest while riding a horse at the defendant's ranch; plaintiff did not present triable issue of material fact showing that horse was unduly dangerous and defendant did not have duty to question plaintiff about her horseback riding skills after plaintiff assured defendant that she had ridden horses on prior occasions).

Exports, Inc., et al. v. Black Hills Power, Inc., No. 07-5017-RHB, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73993 (D. S.D. Aug. 20, 2009)(plaintiff, owner and operator of casinos, restaurants, hotels and other retail establishments in Deadwood, SD, was financially impacted by wildfire which resulted in state declaration of city closure and evacuation; defendant is provider of electric energy through transmission lines via easements for such lines; plaintiff sued defendant for creation of public nuisance which was the direct and proximate cause of plaintiff's damages (food spoilage and physical damage to property) and defendant moved for summary judgment; defendant's motion denied).

Guillaume v. Hall Farms, Inc, et al., No. 42A01-0904-CV-163, 2009 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1076 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2009)(case involves relationship of parties involved in watermelon harvesting operation - independent contractor or employee).

DG&G, Inc. v. FlexSol Packaging Corp of Pompano Beach, No. 08-3417 (8th Cir. Aug. 17, 2009)(plaintiff, a cotton gin operator that routinely added moisture to cotton after ginning, wrapped its cotton bales in bags that the defendant designed and manufactured; upon inspection, cotton found to have large spots of mold and two cotton marketing associations sued plaintiff for damaged bales; plaintiff sued defendant on theories of strict liability failure to warn, strict liability product defect, negligence and breach of implied warranties; trial court granted summary judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed; on appeal court held that: (1) plaintiff knew or should reasonably have been expected to know of the danger of bagging cotton with excess moisture; (2) plaintiff failed to show that it put defendant's bags to a reasonably anticipated use or a foreseeable misuse because plaintiff added to much moisture to cotton before bagging; (3) negligence and implied warranty claims properly dismissed because plaintiff failed to establish a reasonably anticipated use).

Gilley v. LTMX Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 08-cv-688-JPG, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71501 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2009)(premises liability case for injuries arising from ATV accident on land operated by the defendant corporation that was owned individually by the corporation's sole shareholder who leased the land to the corporation; individual shareholder not entitled to summary judgment on liability issue due to close relationship with corporation - evidence could lead to a finding that individual is alter ego of corporation).

Richards, et al. v. Lesaffre Yeast Corp., et al., No. 1:07-cv-163-MEF (WO), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70401 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 11, 2009)(defendant's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff's nuisance claim granted; defendant had acquired a prescriptive easement to maintain the alleged nuisance in 2002 which was 10 years after the plaintiff first felt the harmful consequences of the alleged nuisance).

MacVane v. S.D. Warren Co., LLC, No. 08-388-P-H, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70816 (D. Me. Aug. 11, 2009)(state recreational use statute precludes defendant's liability for death of 13-year old boy who died after touching an active electric power line while jumping off a hydroelectric generation facility into the waters of the Presumpscot River at a local swimming spot).

Darney v. Dragon Products Company, LLC, No. 08-cv-47-P-S, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68751 (D. Maine Aug. 6, 2009)(plaintiff sued defendant for nuisance and trespass based on invasions of intangible dust and vibrations from defendant's cement manufacturing plant near plaintiff's home; court certifies two questions to Maine Supreme Court: (1) whether Maine law recognizes a cause of action for trespass based on intangible invasions by dust or vibrations; and (2) if such a cause of action is recognized, whether proof of actual and substantial damages is required).

Peters, et al. v. Contigroup, et al., No. WD69614, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1019 (Mo. Ct. App. Jul. 7, 2009)(although parent had previously brought nuisance claim against defendant are was awarded $100,000 in damages for the defendant's creation of a temporary nuisance with respect to defendant's hog farm operation, child of parent (who is now an adult, but was a minor at the time of the prior case) not precluded by res judicata from bringing own claim for damages for direct, personal injuries arising from the nuisance as a resident of the parents' home; summary judgment for defendant on child's nuisance claim reversed and case remanded to conduct new trial on child's nuisance claim).

Keller v. CNH America, LLC, No. 07-1648 ADM/AJB, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52577 (D. Minn. Jun. 22, 2009)(farmer killed when combine grain header manufactured by defendant malfunctioned and crushed farmer while he was working on the header; jury question presented on farmer's assumption of risk, expert testimony on defective design admissible, jury question presented on proximate cause and reasonable foreseeability of farmer's actions, but defendant had no post-sale duty to warn).

Paselk, et al. v. Rabun, No. 06-08-00093-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 4266 (Tex. Ct. App. Jun. 16, 2009)(defendants, horse owners, failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that discharge from plaintiff's sewage lagoon associated with plaintiff's dairy operation caused death of defendants' horses).

Thomas v. Blackford County Area Board of Zoning Appeals, 907 N.E.2d 988 (Ind. Sup. Ct. 2009)(plaintff, homeowner within 1/3 of mile from confined animal feeding operation failed to establish that she was aggrieved party under state law such that she could bring suit for alleged loss of value of home).

Pinto v. Revere-Saugus Riding Academy, No. 08-P-318, 2009 Mass. App. LEXIS 746 (Mass. Ct. App. Jun. 8, 2009)(plaintiff suffered injury from fall off horse due to slipping saddle, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to overcome defendant's motion for summary judgment under state Equine Activities Act - defendant not shown to either know or should have known that tack faulty; but, skittish behavior of horse immediately preceding plaintiff's ride sufficient to present jury question as to whether horse's behavior put defendant on notice that plaintiff, a beginning rider, had sufficient ability to ride the horse).

Kaiser v. Brandt, No. BRC 09-934, 2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1319 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. Jun. 1, 2009)(defendant's dogs determined to be "dangerous dogs" in accordance with state law; dogs ordered to be neutered and microchipped and confined at all times in the interior of defendant's home or in secured pen, but cannot be destroyed because of lack of proof that a person sustained "serious personal injury" as required by statute).

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC v. Butler County, No. 1:06-cv-440, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41813 (S.D. Ohio May 18, 2009)(planned improvements to road will interfere with plaintiff's gas pipeline easements, but such interference held not to be unreasonable; defendant may require plaintiff to remove or reinforce its pipelines at plaintiff's expense in order to accomodate the improvements to the road).

Schultz v. Western United Mutual Insurance Assoc., No. A-08-941, 2009 Neb. App. LEXIS 80 (Neb. Ct. App. May 5, 2009)(blanket farm premises loss/liability insurance policy which included theft as a covered peril did not cover loss for stolen heifers because plaintiff held heifers only under bailment arrangement, and policy excluded coverege for a bailee; plaintiff did not have ownership interest in heifers, but only a possessory interest).

Myers v. Maccrea, et al., No. 530 CA 08-01476, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3164 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 24, 2009)(the fact that dogs were permitted to run loose on defendant's 100-acre farm insufficient to raise triable issue of fact whether defendants had prior knowledge that dogs had propensity to interfere with traffic; defendant not liable for plaintiff's injuries sustained from fall from bicycle upon colliding with dogs).

People v. Bowe, No. 102109, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2827 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 16, 2007)(defendant properly convicted of several violations of state cruelty-to-animals statute; issue of constitutionality of statute not reached).

Green v. Study, No. SD29286, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 369 (Mo. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2009)(replevin action involving attempted repossession of trespassing cattle; defendant refused to allow plaintiff to recover cattle unless plaintiff paid $200 per cow; trial court award of $1,000 in nominal damages and $3,000 of punitive damages to plaintiff reversed, but $1,000 in attorney fees for plaintiff upheld; defendant failed to raise at trial statutory right to impound the cattle; but cattle returned unharmed and undamaged, thus $1.00 in nominal damages allowed; plaintiff did not properly request punitive damages, but did raise the issue of attorney fees).

Gaumer v. Rossville Truck and Tractor Company, Inc., et al., No. 99,990, 2009 Kan. App. LEXIS 111 (Kan. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2009)(seller of hay baler "as is" and trial court's dismissal of negligence claim upheld - plaintiff failed to present expert testimony as to standard of care applicable to seller (standard of care of seller of used hay baler outside ordinary experience and common knowledge of jury); trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's strict liability claim reversed - no exception exists for sellers of used products).

Dykes Farms v. Sukup Manufacturing, et al., No. A08-0583, 2009 Minn. App. LEXIS 33 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2009)(settlement agreement between buyer of defective grain-moving system manufactured by defendant and dealer that sold defective product to buyer only releases manufactuer from joint and several liability if the original parties to the settlement agreement manifested such an intent, or if the injured party receives full compensation for the damages sought against the other tortfeasors; factual dispute remains regarded whether buyer was fully compensated as a result of settlement with dealer, thus trial court's grant of summary judgment for manufacturer reversed).

Brennan, et al. v. Schappacher, et al., No. CA2008-09-231, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 737 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2009)(trial court's judgment that plaintiffs' claims for personal injuries arising from hayride accident barred by doctrine of primary assumption or risk associated with a recreational activity reversed; fact issues remain and doctrine of res ipsa loquitor available; but trial court's grant of summary judgment on negligent entrustment claim affirmed). 

Albert, et al. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 04-1611C3, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9084 (E.D. La. Feb. 6, 2009)(state right-to-farm law bars nuisance lawsuit against defendant for alleged damages caused by dust emissions from defendant's grain elevators; plaintiff bears burden to establish that defendant did not follow generally accepted agricultural practices and failed to do so in this case).

Granillo, et al. v. McKinzie, No. 11-07-00241-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 728 (Tex. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2009)(plaintiff not liable for injuries sustained by farm tenant in auto accident that occurred off the farming premises; parties not in partnership and plaintiff not vicariously liable for tenant's negligence; tenant not acting within scope of farming duties at time of accident).

Lee v. Loftin, No. 12-07-00143-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 645 (Tex. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2009)(trial court’s grant of summary judgment for horse owner in case involving injuries sustained by rider while on trail ride on one of owner’s horses reversed; issues of material fact remained as to whether risk of vine wrapping around horse’s flank was inherent risk in trail riding activity, and horse owner not necessarily well aware of rider’s knowledge of horse riding).

Pride of San Juan, Inc. v. Loren Pratt Farms, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0820, 2009 Ariz. App. LEXIS 8 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2009)(defendant farmer liable to plaintiff for damage to plaintiff's broccoli crop caused by aerially applied pesticides; crop dusting held to be inherently dangerous activity which is an exception to the general rule of nonliability of an employer for an independent contractor's negligence).

Uhl v. Thomas, No. CA2008-06-131, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 139 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2009)(summary judgment properly granted to defendant, owner of century-old barn, for injuries sustained by plaintiff who fell through barn roof; while defendant classified as invitee, danger of roof collapsing was open and obvious danger).

Farm Bureau Insurance v. Deere Company, No. 1:08-CV-922, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2595 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 14, 2009)(economic loss doctrine bars tort recovery for total loss of tractor which caught fire upon activation of tractor cab’s exterior lights).

Lindsey v. DeGroot Dairy, LLC, No. 35A02-0805-CV-470, 2009 Ind. App. LEXIS 6 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2009)(state Right-to-Farm law upheld as constitutional and defendant's dairy operation did not constitute a taking of plaintiff's property via creation of an easement to maintain a nuisance; Right-To-Farm law barred plaintiff's nuisance claim and plaintiff's failed to establish that dairy operated negligently).

Kennamer, et al. v. Estate of Noblitt, No. 01-08-00134-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 82 (Tex. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2009)(summary judgment granted for defendant in case involving individual who was attacked and injured by a cow allegedly owned by decedent; evidence insufficient to establish that defendant owned suspect cow).

Carter, et ux. v. Loyd, et al., No. 08-529, 2008 La. App. LEXIS 1753 (La. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2008)(plaintiff not entitled to personal injury damages received in automobile accident caused by swerving to avoid horses on public roadway; plaintiff failed to positively identify that horses on roadway were defendant's horses).

Welch v. Cabelka, No. 07-6298, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24959 (10th Cir. Dec. 10, 2008)(plaintiff, surviving spouse of decedent who was killed in head- on collision with defendant’s farm implement on public road, appeals trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for new trial; trial court’s determination upheld where evidence revealed that defendant did not violate state standard of care for moving farm implements on public roadways).

Gilbert, et al. v. Synagro Central, LLC, et al., No. 1:08-CV-1460, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80449 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2008)(case remanded to state court because only state law claims involved; complaint alleged negligence, private nuisance and trespass actions against defendant arising from disposal of treated sewer sludge on hundreds of acres of land abutting, adjoining or otherwise nearby plaintiffs' property).

Curd, et al. v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, No. 2D07-352, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 14241 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2008)(commercial fishermen cannot sued for economic losses incurred due to defendant’s pollution of waters; plaintiffs did not have recognizable property right in fish and claims for negligence and strict liability barred by economic loss doctrine).

Rankin, et al. v. FPL Energy, LLC, et al., No. 11-07-00074-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6398 (Tex. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2008)(wind farm development could be characterized as condemnation without the obligation to pay damages, but Texas law does not provide nuisance action for aesthetical impact and trial court’s grant of summary judgment on this point upheld; trial court’s exclusion of additional noise witness testimony upheld; each party to bear own costs because defendant’s conduct caused plaintiffs to respond to groundless motions).

Welcher v. Spees, No. 8-437/07-1377 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2008)(under Iowa law (Iowa Code §351.28)(owner of dog liable for all injuries caused by dog; defendant not dog owner so not liable for plaintiff’s injuries sustained in dog attack).

Umbdenstock v. Interstate Power and Light Company, No.8-529/07-1816 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2008)(defendant not liable for alleged stray voltage problems associated with plaintiff’s dairy operation; USDA publication properly admissible to establish defendant’s non-liability under hearsay exception for public records and reports that take place of expert testimony).

Exxon Shipping Co., et al. v. Baker, et al., No. 07-219 (U.S. Aug. 12, 2008)(Court refused to decide whether fisherman who sued over the Exxon Valdez oil spill are entitled to collect interest on the punitive damages award of $507.5 million; case remanded to Ninth Circuit).

Klein v. United States, No. 06-55510, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16111 (9th Cir. Jul. 30, 2008)(court certifies the following question to the California Supreme Court: whether California’s recreational land use statute immunizes the government (as landowner) from liability for acts of vehicular negligence committed by landowner’s employee in the course and scope of employment that causes personal injury to a recreational user of the land).

Andrew v. Mid Plains Food & Lodging, Inc. (Cheyenne County, NE)(jury verdict for plaintiff whose children became ill after eating meal at defendant's franchisee; plaintiff was police officer and was served food with "special sauce" reserved just for police officers and their families consisting of urine and saliva).

Coop v. Department of Natural Resources, No. 07-1763, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15041 (8th Cir. Jul. 16, 2008)(plaintiff injured in fall from wheelchair at state park operated by defendant; Missouri Recreational Land Use Statute held applicable with result that defendant did not owe plaintiff any duty of care to keep land safe for recreational use or give any general or specific warning concerning any natural or artificial condition).

Beardsley v. Farmland Co-Op, Inc., No. 06-8062, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14795 (10th Cir. Jul. 11, 2008)(defendant not liable for injuries sustained by plaintiff (an unauthorized guest passenger of plaintiff’s spouse) in traffic accident involving defendant’s truck driven by plaintiff’s spouse (employee of defendant); plaintiff’s evidence failed to establish any basis on which a reasonable jury could decide that plaintiff was an authorized passenger and whether plaintiff’s spouse had either actual or apparent authority to invite plaintiff to travel in the truck).

Federal Trade Commission v. Bronson Partners, LLC, et al., No. 3:04cv1866 (SRU), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52623 (D. Conn. Jul. 10, 2008)(permanent injunction entered against defendant for falsely advertising that users of Chinese Diet Tea would be “guaranteed” weight loss; damages to be determined following subsequent hearing; defendant conceded liability as to false advertising concerning second product, Bio Slim Patch).

Christensen v. United States, et al., No. 07-4133 (10th Cir. Jul. 9, 2008)(plaintiff permanently injured in fall from horse that tripped on loop of exposed, non-live grounding wire attached to power pole maintained by defendant; grounding wire associated with installation of water pipeline on easement other defendants had obtained from the government; trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants on plaintiff’s negligence claims – plaintiff failed to show breach of duty owed to him; defendants did not have actual or constructive knowledge that unsafe condition existed and sufficient time to remedy situation; no heightened duty of care because wire not live; no evidence presented that water pipe installation disturbed grounding wire or rod; no evidence of causal connection).

Herman, et al. v. Berrien County, No. 134097, 2008 Mich. LEXIS 1166 (Mich. Sup. Ct. Jun. 18, 2008)(county constructed outdoor shooting range for firearms training purposes for local law enforcement prohibited by local zoning and anti-noise ordinances; shooting range only ancillary to law enforcement building and building’s normal use was for firearms training and support; thus, outdoor shooting ranges not indispensible for building’s indoor training and support because indoor training could be conducted without the outdoor shooting ranges being located next to the building). 

Tennyson v. Zoning Hearing Board, No. 1045 C.D. 2006, 2008 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 275 (Penn. Commw. Ct. Jun. 17, 2008)(grant of special exception from zoning ordinance allowing construction of horse stable and accessory facilities affirmed; neighbor’s testimony about odors, well water contamination and flies merely speculative).

Hall, et al. v. North Montgomery Materials, LLC, No. 2060946, 2008 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 370 (Ala. Ct. Civ. App. Jun. 13, 2008)(proposed operation or rock mining quarry for production of gravel held to be a public nuisance because local roads inadequate to safely handle required truck traffic; case remanded to trial court to “balance the equities” in determining how to abate the anticipated nuisance).

State ex rel., Young v. Wood, No. SC88840, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 48 (Miss. Sup. Ct. Jun. 10, 2008)(state recreational use statute held applicable to immunize landowner from liability for death of hunter on property who was shot by another hunter; statute did not require landowners to open property to general public, and statute clear that if landowner doesn’t charge for recreational activities, landowner assumes no responsibility for damage or injury to any other person caused by recreational entrant’s act or omission). 

Four Township Citizens' Coalition, et al. v. Rondigo, LLC, No. 275471, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1205 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2008)(plaintiffs' action for injunctive relief against defendant for nuisance per se, private nuisance, violation of state environmental law and claim that state right-to- farm law does not protect commercial composting dismissed for lack of standing; defendant had not yet engaged in any on-farm composting and no evidence presented that defendant proposed on-farm composting would violate state law).

Biagini v. Beckham, et al., No. C054915, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 847 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2008)(public use of road as shown by plaintiff insufficient to constitute implied acceptance of defendant’s statutory offer to dedicate it for public use; accordingly, plaintiff’s cutting down of trees and other vegetation on defendant’s adjacent property improper and plaintiff liable for $4,296 in damages). 

Reicosky v. McCammon, No. 2006 CA 00342, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2344 (Ohio Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2008)(defendant cut down plaintiff’s landscape-grade trees without authorization and plaintiff sued for reckless destruction of trees under state statute authorizing treble damages; trial court’s judgment for plaintiff and denial of defendant’s motion for new trial upheld).   

Angell v. Polaris Production Corporation, No. 07-2034, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12007 (10th Cir. Jun. 4, 2008)(cattle rancher sued defendant on public nuisance theory for contamination of cattle ranch arising from oil spills; trial court ruing for defendant upheld - plaintiff did not meet burden of proof that defendant caused the contamination).

Charron v. Charron, 16 Neb. App. 724 (2008)(divorce case involving farm assets; trial court did not err in awarding 138 acres to ex-wife; acreage not an integral part of ex-husband’s farming and ranching operation; ex-wife not entitled to “Grace” award to even-out property division because substantial marital estate existed which was divided evenly).

Thrasher v. Rivervend Stables, LLC, et al., No. M2007-01237-COA-R3- CV, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2008)(plaintiff's Tennessee Walking Horse died at defendant's stable; plaintiff claimed horse died due to defendant's negligence, but such claim barred by exculpatory provision in contract between the parties and plaintiff failed to make out prima facie claim of gross negligence).

In re Conagra Peanut Butter Products Liability Litigation, No. 1:07- MD-1845-TWT, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40753 (N.D. Ga. May 21, 2008)(product liability action involving class of persons injured by defendant's defective peanut butter; on defendant's motion to dismiss, court ruled that plaintiffs should be allowed to recover from a common fund if successful on unjust enrichment claim; plaintiffs alleged sufficient injury, causation and redressability to show standing; but to extent plaintiffs seek recovery for economic losses, those claims are dismissed).

Jackson v. Murphy Farm and Ranch, Inc., et al., No. 2007-CA-00457-COA, 2008 Miss. App. LEXIS 306 (Miss. Ct. App. May 20, 2008)(plaintiff, defendant’s employee, injured while operating a tractor; summary judgment for defendant upheld on basis that plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by plaintiff’s own negligence).

Dawson Farms, LLC v. BASF Corp., et al., No. 06-0737, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38733 (W.D. La. May 13, 2008)(defendant’s herbicide, marketed for use on sweet potatoes beginning in 2005, caused severe damage to plaintiff’s potato crop; plaintiff sued on claims of breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, design defect, and that defendant liable under state Unfair Trade Practices Act and state product liability law; defendant’s summary judgment motion granted as to negligence, negligent misrepresentation and state Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, and denied as to other claims).

Green v. Alpharma, Inc., et al., No. 07-382, 2008 Ark. LEXIS 315 (Ark Sup. Ct. May 8, 2008)(trial court decision granting summary judgment to defendants (poultry feed supplier and poultry production companies) reversed; plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to satisfy “frequency, regularity and proximity” test concerning plaintiff’s exposure to poultry litter dust containing carcinogenic compounds; but trial court grant of summary judgment denying defendant’s expert witness report upheld; case reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded).

In re Peanut Crop Insurance Litigation, No. 07-1145, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9899 (4 th Cir. May 8, 2008)(case involves action against government concerning indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued, governmentally backed insurance policy; trial court granted summary judgment for farmers but trial court decision vacated and case remanded because (1) policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at $.31 quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; (2) prevention doctrine misapplied insomuch as indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and (3) detrimental reliance not present because government programs are subject to congressional modification and farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program).

Obendorf v. Terra Hug Spray Company, Inc., et al., No. 31195/31217, 2008 Ida. LEXIS 82 (Ida. Sup. Ct. May 1, 2008)(asparagus crop loss case; plaintiff awarded $2.435 million in damages, but trial court’s grant of new trial upheld).

Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc., No. 34995-7-II, 2008 Wash. App. LEXIS 916 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2008)(owner of horse breeding farm and commercial boarding facility cannot sue defendant, a tenant under a lease for the facility, for tort damages (repair costs to property) due to defendant’s alleged breach of lease; economic loss doctrine bars recovery for damages arising from contractual relationship between the parties).

Tennesssee Farmers Mutual Insurance, Co. v. Cherry, et al., No. W2007- 00342-COA-R3-CV, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 209 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2008)(injury sustained by farm worker while grinding corn to feed farm owner’s cattle was incurred during scope of employment and was covered by farm owner’s liability policy that covered occurrences to “farm employees”; insurer had duty to defend and indemnify the insured).

Hollywood Park Humane Society v. Hollywood Park, No. 04-07-00131-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 2312 (Tex. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2008)(case involves dispute over defendant’s methods used to control deer population within city limits; ordinance banning deer feeding on private property upheld as well as trapping and relocation program).

Dotson v. Davis, No. COA07-789, 2008 N.C. App. LEXIS 598 (N.C. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2008)(tractor/dump truck collision case; while defendant negligent in causing collision, plaintiff contributorily negligent; issue of last clear chance should not have been submitted to jury due to lack of evidence that defendant had time and means to avoid the injury; trial court’s judgment reversed and defendant entitled to judgment).

Reams v. Irvin, No. 1:06-CV-1511-RWS, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25350 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2008)(state agriculture officials impounded 46 of plaintiff’s horses and 3 of her donkeys based on claim that plaintiff was not providing them adequate food and shelter; plaintiff brought claims against state officials for violation of her Constitutional rights; Due Process requirement satisfied by availability of both administrative and state court review, no Equal Protection violation, and areas where animals located not part of curtilage of home so no Fourth Amendment violation).

Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, et al., 286 Conn. 152, 943 A.2d 391 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2008)(defendant not liable to plaintiff for injuries sustained from dog bite because defendant not owner or “keeper” of dog under state statute imposing strict liability; no evidence that defendant exercised control over employee’s dog and ownership of premises where dog kept, by itself, insufficient to impose strict liability; case remanded for trial on issue of whether defendant liable on ordinary negligence principles).

Singleton v. Sherer, No. Op 4346, 2008 S.C. App. LEXIS 22 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2008)(personal injury action for raccoon bite; premises liability case involving issue of status of entrant and resulting duty owed plaintiff; assumption of risk and proximate causation issues also involved).

C & S Hamilton Hay, LLC v. CNH America LLC, No. CV—7-31-E-EJL, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13151 (D. Idaho Feb. 21, 2008) (tractor fire case where plaintiff sued for damages based on negligence in design and manufacturing and breach of warranty; fire destroyed the tractor and other implements; defendant asserted that negligence claim barred by economic loss doctrine because property damage was only to property involved in the lawsuit; court held that tractor implements were separate property and negligent design claim not barred by economic loss doctrine).

Gerlach v. Woodke, 881 N.E. 2d 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)(worker’s compensation case; employee not an agricultural employee at time injury sustained and, thus, entitled to worker’s compensation benefits; plaintiff owned and operated 685-acre farm and defendant repaired and maintained farm machinery and equipment, operated ground-planting and harvesting equipment, sorted and loaded hogs and supervised farming operations in plaintiff’s absence; plaintiff injured while assisting a welder on the farm; court noted that employees can be employed in a dual capacity, but plaintiff not working as farm employee at time of injury as defined by Ind. Code §22-3-2-9(a)).

Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Mendes, et al., No. F052009, 160 Cal. App. 4th 136 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (dairy farm not subject to animal cruelty claim by plaintiff; state law did not provide for a private right of action).