Preserving adequate documentation is critical when a farmer claims crop damage from the application of weed control chemicals. In this case, a farmer owned farmland and rented additional tracts of land from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR contract specified that the farmer was required to leave ten percent of the crop grown on the rented fields unharvested for use as a nature preserve. The land owned by the DNR and rented to the farmer contained some sandy areas which were adversely affected by extreme heat and lack of moisture. In 2005, the farmer decided to plant conventional, non-GMO seeds that required more weed maintenance than GMO varieties. The farmer consulted a friend who was a salesman for a local ag chemical supplier about using chemicals to control the weed growth on the property. The salesman gave the farmer a bid and the farmer accepted, with the understanding that the farmer would later execute a promissory note and security agreement to finance payment for the chemicals.
The chemical company sprayed the fields twice and on August 1, 2005, the parties executed the promissory note for $108,019, to be paid in full after harvest (by Dec. 1, 2005). The promissory note also specified that if the farmer did not pay and the supplier had to file an action for payment, the supplier would be awarded attorneys’ fees. The crops were harvested, but the farmer failed to pay in full. Months later, the supplier filed a petition for judgment and foreclosure of the note and requested attorneys’ fees. The farmer filed a counterclaim with the trial court, claiming that the supplier did not properly spray the crops, resulting in crop loss.
At trial, the farmer testified that the weeds and incorrect chemical application seriously impaired the 2005 crop. However, the farmer could not offer any photographic evidence of the weed problems or evidence of prior and subsequent yield data. The farmer claimed the weed problem caused a crop loss of nearly $40,000. A representative of the supplier disagreed, testifying that he was not aware of a weed problem for quite some time. Further, the weed problem was mainly on the DNR land. It was noted that 2005 was a hot, dry growing season in Iowa and the sandy soil present in the DNR land was particularly susceptible to weeds. An agronomy expert testified that it was impossible to determine whether the ineffective weed control was a product of the weather conditions or the chemical application. The trial court agreed and sided with the ag supplier stating that the success of herbicides depends on the farmer in cooperation with the applicator, weather conditions, and soil quality.
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed and focused on the lack of evidence of yield loss presented by the farmer. Even though the farmer used GPS in his farming operation, he was unable to present the court with yield data. The court noted that the party seeking damages has the responsibility and burden of proving those damages. Here, the trial record was uncertain and speculative as to whether the farmer had sustained damage due to the chemical application. Stutsman v. Rogers, No. 0-274/09-0835 (Iowa Ct. App., Jun. 30, 2010).