In July 2011, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in ruling on an issue of first impression, held that particulate matter from chemical pesticide drift could constitute a trespass under Minnesota law. Upon further review, however, the Minnesota Supreme Court spent little time quelling the Court of Appeals’ forging of new legal ground and swiftly reversed the decision.
The case stems from plaintiff’s complaints of pesticide drift onto his fields over a period of several years. The defendant, a local co-op, sprayed chemical pesticides for conventional farmers on field’s adjoining plaintiff’s property. Some of the plaintiff’s fields were growing organic crops and other fields were going through the three-year transitional process for organic certification eligibility.
The plaintiff reported the pesticide as required by the regulations governing organic certification. The plaintiff was told by an organic certifying agent to destroy 10 acres of soybeans, and the plaintiff alleged he was required to start over on the three year process for transferring land into the organic program due to the drift. There was no evidence presented regarding whether the drift reached the EPA threshold of 5% before any of these actions were taken. The plaintiff sued the co-op, and the trial court granted summary judgment to the co-op. The court held that pesticide drift is a not recognized as a trespass in the state. The court also held that the plaintiff failed to prove his damages, so his negligence and nuisance claims failed as well. The court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed finding pesticide drift could constitute a trespass and that the trial court erred in dismissing the claims. The co-op appealed and the Supreme Court granted review of the entire matter.
In Minnesota, a trespass is an intentional act that occurs when there is a wrongful or unlawful entry by a person affecting another’s right of possession to their land. Actual damages are not required in order to prove the claim. The focus, instead, is on whether there has been an intentional direct, physical, and tangible entry upon the land that another person possesses.
Never Mind, Pesticide Drift Doesn’t Constitute a Trespass After All (PDF)