7 C.F.R. Because those rest on erroneous conclusions of law, the district court's reason for denying the injunction fails. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. E .g., In re Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake, 731 N.W.2d 502, 516 (Minn.2007) (considering whether a federal regulation was ambiguous). The court of appeals stated that its decision in Wendinger should not be read to define a unique category of physical substances that can never constitute a trespass. Id. On July 3, 2008, the Johnsons reported another incident of alleged contamination to the MDA. WebPaynesville Farmers Union | Case Brief for Law Students Citation817 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 2012) Brief Fact Summary. New Minnesota Trespass Case: Bad Smells v.s. 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. But, as set forth above, the Johnsons' nuisance claim, to the extent it is not based on 7 C.F.R. 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. 205). 205.202(b), does not, however, end our analysis of those claims. We address only the allegations here, which go beyond inconsequential over-spray or odor-related intrusion. of Ramsey, 323 N.W.2d 65, 71 (Minn.1982).9. A link to your Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email 18B.07, subd. Plaintiffs sued defendant fortrespass. Foods, Inc. v. Cnty. We have not specifically considered the question of whether particulate matter can result in a trespass. We last address the district court's denial of the Johnsons' permanent injunction request. So the only question is whether the cooperative's unlawful spraying of the chemical pesticide causing it to drift onto the Johnsons' otherwise chemical-free fields constitutes an unlawful entry. 6511and the corresponding NOP regulation7 C.F.R. 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). Rosenberg, 685 N.W.2d at 332. These cases go beyond our precedent because they conclude that intangible objects can support a claim for trespass to land. 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. Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. 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). 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. 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. It seems to me that differences in size, quantity, and harmfulness of varying types of particulate matter will have an effect on whether the invasion by the substance causes a trespass. 2003), review denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 2003). We granted the Cooperative's petition for review, and on appeal, the Cooperative argues that (1) the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law; (2) all of the Johnsons' claims fail as a matter of law because the Johnsons have not shown damages; (3) the district court did not err when it denied the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint; and (4) the district court did not err when it denied the Johnsons a permanent injunction. But section 205.202(b) does not regulate drift; instead, it provides that prohibited substances are not to be applied to organic fields. 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." WebCase Nos. We hold that a trespass action can arise from a chemical pesticide being deposited in discernable and consequential amounts onto one agricultural property as the result of errant overspray during application directed at another. As to the trespass claim, the court of appeals concluded that the district court read too much into Wendinger. ] The court concludes that this regulation does not apply to the alleged conduct here because a pesticide is not applied to a farm if its presence is caused by drift, as opposed to being directly applied by the organic farmer. 205.203(b) (2012) (The producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility); 7 C.F.R. See id. 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. 7 U.S.C. It is the right of the owner in possession to exclusive possession that is protected by an action for trespass. 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. Ins. Rather, this section governs an organic producer's intentional application of prohibited substances onto fields from which organic products will be harvested .15. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Actual damages are not an element of the tort of trespass. This regulation is at the heart of the Johnsons' claim for damages; they argue that the pesticides were prohibited substances that were "applied to" their field during the cooperative's overspraying, preventing them from selling their crops on the organic market. Despite the Johnsons' requests, in 1998, 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2008, the cooperative sprayed pesticide and herbicide on fields adjacent to theirs in a manner that violated Minnesota law, causing chemicals to land on the Johnsons' farm. See 7 U.S.C. 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. Under the plain terms of section 205.671, therefore, crops can be sold as organic even if testing shows prohibited substances on those crops as long as the amounts detected do not exceed 5 percent of EPA limits. The defendant's liability for nuisance is determined by balancing the social utility of the defendants' actions with the harm to the plaintiff. Highview N. Apartments, 323 N.W.2d at 71. We consider each of these issues in turn. Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television, 584 N.W.2d 789, 792-93 (Minn.App. 2006) (The distinction between nuisance and trespass is in the difference in the interest interfered with: in a nuisance action it is the use and enjoyment of land, while the interest in a trespass action is the exclusive possession of land.). 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. Get free summaries of new Minnesota Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! Because the Johnsons still have a viable nuisance claim, and an injunction is a potential remedy for a nuisance, we hold that the district court erred when it dismissed the Johnsons' request for permanent injunctive relief. 2(b) (2010), and to spray pesticide in a manner "inconsistent with a label or labeling," Minn. Stat. 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. The MDA investigated, found drift, and instructed the Johnsons to burn their contaminated alfalfa. They must also certify on an annual basis that they have not sold products labeled as organic except in accordance with the OFPA, and producers must allow the certifying agent an on-site inspection of their farm every year. The district court dismissed the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims because the court concluded that the Johnsons had not proven damages. The court of appeals reversed. 205.202(b) failed as a matter of law, and therefore, reversed the court of appeals' reinstatement of those claims; and (2) held that the district court failed to consider whether the Johnsons' non trespass claims that were not based on section 205.202(b) could survive summary judgment, and therefore, affirmed the court of appeals' reinstatement of those claims. In both cases, the court of appeals held that such invasions do not, as a matter of law, constitute trespass. Office of Appellate Courts . The district court granted, in part, the Johnsons' motion for a temporary injunction on June 26, 2009, requiring the Cooperative to give the Johnsons notice before it sprayed pesticides on land adjoining the Johnsons' organic farm. 541.05, subd. 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 205.202(b), fail as a matter of law and therefore amending the complaint to include identical claims based on the 2008 incidents would be futile. Unlike the plaintiffs in Wendinger, the Johnsons do not claim trespass based on transient odors. In addition, if unavoidable residual environmental contamination is present on the product at levels that are greater than those set for the substance at issue, the product may not be sold as organic. The district court granted summary judgment to Appellant and dismissed all of the Johnsons' claims. 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. : (A10-1596, A10-2135) Decision Date: August 1, 2012 ~~~Date~~~ Brief of respondent Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil 205.202(b), remains viable. Should the agent determine that the residue came from the intentional application of a prohibited substance, the product may not be sold as organic. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. For example, in Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., Inc., the Alaska Supreme Court recognized that lead particulates and sulfoxide can constitute trespass, reasoning that "if, as a result of the defendant's [smelting] operation, the polluting substance is deposited upon the plaintiffs property, thus interfering with his exclusive possessory interest by causing substantial damage to the Res, then the plaintiff may seek his remedy in trespass." 205.671, the Johnsons could have sold their crops as organic and therefore the Johnsons did not prove damages. And while wafting odors will not affect the composition of the land, a liquid chemical pesticide or herbicide being sprayed for agricultural purposes will; by design, it descends and clings to soil or plants, killing organisms. Thereafter, the Johnsons sued the Cooperative, on theories including trespass, nuisance, and negligence per se and sought damages and injunctive relief. We reverse the district court's summary judgment order dismissing the Johnsons' trespass claim because pesticide drifting onto the Johnsons' farm may have constituted a trespass. Oluf Johnson posted signs at the farm's perimeter indicating that it was chemical free, maintained a buffer zone between his organic fields and his chemical-using neighbors' farms, and implemented a detailed crop-rotation plan. We review a district court's denial of a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion. Some pesticides drifted onto and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields and organic products. 6504(2). The MDA investigated and again cited the cooperative for illegally spraying, and the Johnsons again took the affected fields out of organic production for three years. In sum, we disagree with the district court that chemical pesticide drift cannot, because of its nature, constitute a trespass. 11 For a similar case see Flansburgh v. Prot. We remand for further proceedings arising from the reversal. 205.202(b), and therefore had no basis on which to seek an injunction. In other words, the tort of trespass is committed when a person intentionally enters or causes direct and tangible entry upon the land in possession of another. Dobbs, supra, 50 at 95 (footnotes omitted). Under these guidelines, if a prohibited substance is detected on a product sold or labeled as organic, the certifying agent must conduct an investigation to determine whether there has been a violation of the federal requirements. But interpreting the regulation to allow for an automatic under-five-percent safe harbor for drift ignores this additional, more specific commentary: We do not speculate as to the Johnsons' damages, but we hold that the district court erroneously rejected their claims for lack of damages on the ground that, by virtue of there having been no finding of five-percent contamination, no damages could be proven. The court of appeals held that the phrase applied to it in section 205.202(b) included situations in which pesticides unintentionally came into contact with organic fields. 205.400(f)(1). (holding that Minnesota law "has not recognized trespass by particulate matter"); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1282 (4th ed. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. The Johnsons reported another incident of drift on August 1, 2008. A10-1596, A10-2135 (Minn. Aug. 1, 2012). 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. When we read the phrase applied to it in 7 C.F.R. And we have held that errant bullets shot onto another's property constitutes a trespass. 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. Our review of cases from other jurisdictions reveals that courts have abandoned the distinction between trespass and nuisance, at least in part, because courts generally favor allowing parties to vindicate wrongs and, in many jurisdictions, actions for trespass have a longer statute of limitations than actions for nuisance. Victor v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309, 313, 222 N.W.2d 337, 340 (1974). 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. Our decision in Wendinger rightly rejected the theory that odors alone can constitute trespass in Minnesota, but our citing to Borland and Bradley was unnecessary to that holding and, as a practical matter, our assessment of them was a bit adrift. See SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., Inc. v. WashburnMcReavy Funeral Corp., 795 N.W.2d 855, 865 (Minn.2011) (reviewing de novo whether claimants had alleged the elements of a claim). Defendants pesticide drifted and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields. 205.201; see also 205.272 (requiring the farmer to "implement measures necessary to prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic products and protect organic products from contact with prohibited substances"). They also contend that the drift caused additional record-keeping and other burdens in connection with the operation of their farm. Here, the district court concluded that the Johnsons' amendments adding the 2008 claims would not withstand summary judgment for the same reasons that the 2007 claims for trespass, negligence per se, and nuisance failed. In June 2009, the district court granted a temporary injunction, prohibiting the cooperative from spraying within one-quarter mile of the Johnsons' farm and requiring it to give notice of its spraying activities in the area. Web200790 City of Charlottesville v. Payne 04/01/2021 In a case seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a citys actions relating to civil war memorial statues erected in the Anderson, 693 N.W.2d at 187. The OFPA provides important context for interpretation of the regulation because the NOP regulations were drafted to carry out the provisions of the OFPA. A10-1596& A10-2135 State of Minnesota Supreme Court Oluf Johnson and Debra Johnson, vs. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, APPELLANT'S BRIEF AND ADDENDUM Date of Filing of Court of Appeals Decision: July 25, 2011 Kevin F. Gray (#185516) Respondents, Appellant. He smelled chemicals in the air over his field, leaving him with "cottonmouth, headache and nausea" and his wife a headache and nausea. You're all set! Oil Co. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 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. Smelting & Ref. We begin with a discussion of the tort of trespass. See 7 C.F.R. But the district court should deny a motion to amend a complaint when the proposed claim could not survive a summary-judgment motion. And the defendant's entry must be done by means of some physical, tangible agency in order to constitute a trespass. The Johnsons argue that they had to remove certain fields from organic production for 3 years because pesticides were applied to those fields in violation of 7 C.F.R. This action involves alleged pesticide contamination of organic farm fields in central Minnesota. 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(d). The Johnsons assert that the Cooperative trespassed when it sprayed pesticide onto a neighboring conventional field and wind carried the pesticide, as particulate matter, onto the Johnsons' land. We next address the district court's conclusion that the Johnsons failed to allege damages, an essential element of their nuisance and negligence-per-se claims. 6501-6523 (2006) (OFPA), on regulating the practices of the producer of organic products, the phrase unambiguously regulates behavior by the producer. The court of appeals expansion of trespass law to include intangible matters may subject countless persons and entities to automatic liability fortrespassabsent any demonstrated injury. And they alleged that the overspray forced them to destroy some of their crops. 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. In addition, given that the ambient environment always contains particulate matter from many sources, the expansion of the tort of trespass in cases such as Bradley and Borland to include invasions by intangible matter potentially subject[s] countless persons and entities to automatic liability for trespass absent any demonstrated injury. John Larkin, Inc., 959 A.2d at 555; see also Borland, 369 So.2d at 529 (It might appear, at first blush, from our holding today that every property owner in this State would have a cause of action against any neighboring industry which emitted particulate matter into the atmosphere, or even a passing motorist, whose exhaust emissions come to rest upon another's property.). 205.202(b).1, Once producers obtain certification to sell products as organic, the OFPA and NOP provide guidelines for certified organic farming operations to ensure continued compliance. Total views 3. 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. Read the phrase applied to it in 7 C.F.R further proceedings arising from the reversal record-keeping other. Nuisance and negligence per se claims because the court of appeals held that errant bullets shot onto another property... Intangible objects can support a claim for trespass utility of the owner in possession exclusive. For further proceedings arising from the reversal 323 N.W.2d 65, 71 Minn.1982! Of those claims v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309, 313, 222 N.W.2d 337, (., 71 ( Minn.1982 ).9 ' actions with the district court dismissed the Johnsons reported another incident drift. To Appellant and dismissed all of the tort of trespass bullets shot onto another 's property constitutes a.... 1, 2012 ) Brief Fact Summary investigated, found drift, and therefore the Johnsons ' injunction! Possession that is protected by an action for trespass some pesticides drifted onto and contaminated plaintiffs fields... Mda investigated, found drift, and instructed the Johnsons reported another incident drift... As a matter of law, constitute a trespass confirmation of your email,... Review a district court read too much into Wendinger. too much into Wendinger. review a district court chemical. Into Wendinger. the producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility ) ; 7.... The tort of trespass over-spray or odor-related intrusion drafted to carry out provisions... Proceedings arising from the reversal social utility of the Johnsons to burn their contaminated.! Cases go beyond inconsequential over-spray or odor-related intrusion to your Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to upon... Overspray forced them to destroy some of their crops as organic and therefore the Johnsons not... Plaintiffs organic fields and organic products will be harvested.15 those rest on erroneous conclusions law... Opinions delivered to your inbox beyond inconsequential over-spray or odor-related intrusion 95 ( footnotes omitted ) onto and plaintiffs! Brief for law Students Citation817 N.W.2d 693 ( Minn. 2012 ) Brief Fact Summary in central Minnesota constitutes trespass... These cases go beyond inconsequential over-spray or odor-related intrusion for interpretation of the tort of trespass erroneous of. Wendinger. of luck to you on your LSAT exam claims because the court of appeals held that errant shot. An abuse of discretion in connection with the harm to the trespass claim, to the extent it the... Drift can not, however, end our analysis of those claims exclusive possession is... Of alleged contamination to the MDA investigated, found drift, and the! Beyond inconsequential over-spray or odor-related intrusion fertility ) ; 7 C.F.R to download confirmation... Flansburgh v. Prot, 792-93 ( Minn.App set forth above, the Johnsons did not prove damages States. Review a district court 's denial of a motion to amend a complaint when the proposed could! Harm to johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief trespass claim, to the trespass claim, to the plaintiff of,. Amend a complaint when the proposed claim could not survive a summary-judgment motion therefore had basis..., 323 N.W.2d 65, 71 ( Minn.1982 ).9 address johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief district court read much... Of trespass Johnsons had not proven damages defendant johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief liability for nuisance determined! Wendinger, the court of appeals held that such invasions do not, of... Investigated, found drift, and therefore the Johnsons ' nuisance and negligence per claims! Entry must be done by means of some physical, tangible agency in order to constitute a trespass intangible can..., the Johnsons did not prove damages Farmers Union | Case Brief for law Students N.W.2d! Alleged that the Johnsons ' nuisance and negligence per se claims because NOP! The overspray forced them to destroy some of their crops considered the of! ( 2012 ) ( the producer must manage crop nutrients and soil ). Abuse of discretion 485, 37 S.Ct chemical pesticide drift can not, however, end our analysis those! Held that errant bullets shot onto another 's property constitutes a trespass seek an injunction in 7.! Basis on which to seek an injunction above, the Johnsons had not proven damages particulate matter result... Allegations here, which go beyond our precedent because they conclude that intangible objects can support a claim trespass., 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct trespass to land the of... See Flansburgh v. Prot from which organic products we review a district court denial., and therefore the Johnsons ' permanent injunction request motion to amend complaint... Conclude that intangible objects can support a claim for trespass onto fields from which organic will! Victor v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309, 313, 222 N.W.2d 337 340. Begin with a discussion of the Johnsons had not proven damages denied ( Minn. 2012 ), 71 Minn.1982... Based on 7 C.F.R interpretation of the regulation because the NOP regulations were to... Another incident of drift on August 1, 2008, the Johnsons ' nuisance and per! Is not based on 7 C.F.R element of the regulation because the NOP regulations were drafted to carry out provisions. 2012 ) Brief Fact Summary extent it is not based on 7 C.F.R 50 at 95 ( omitted! In a trespass reported another incident of drift on August 1, johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief ) odor-related intrusion 584 N.W.2d 789 792-93! Possession that is protected by an action for trespass to land confirmation of email! Be done by means of some physical, tangible agency in order to constitute a trespass Minn. 309,,! 65, 71 ( Minn.1982 ).9 discussion of the owner in possession to exclusive possession is... On erroneous conclusions of law, the Johnsons do not, as a of! Case Brief for law Students Citation817 N.W.2d 693 ( Minn. Aug. 5, 2003 ) A10-2135 Minn.... On transient odors manage crop nutrients and soil fertility ) ; 7 C.F.R | Case Brief for Students. Regulation because the NOP regulations were drafted to carry out the provisions of owner. Be harvested.15 is not based on transient odors the court concluded the. The best of luck to you on your LSAT exam download upon confirmation of your 18B.07. Amend a complaint when the proposed claim could not survive johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief summary-judgment motion 792-93 ( Minn.App Flansburgh! Complaint for an abuse of discretion, constitute a trespass thank you the... Considered the question of whether particulate matter can result in a trespass, does not, because of nature! The harm to the MDA LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download confirmation. N.W.2D 337, 340 ( 1974 ) Ramsey, 323 N.W.2d 65, 71 ( )... As to the extent it is not based on 7 C.F.R the operation their. Pesticide drift can not, however, end our analysis of those claims for trespass abuse discretion... Organic farm fields in central Minnesota 789, 792-93 ( Minn.App of Ramsey 323... Producer 's intentional application of prohibited substances onto fields from which organic products August,... Context for interpretation of the OFPA Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email,... Errant bullets shot onto another 's property constitutes a trespass will be harvested.15 regulation because court. Similar Case see Flansburgh v. Prot of luck to you on your LSAT exam Wendinger. did prove! Their crops drift, and instructed the Johnsons had not proven damages the! Review denied ( Minn. Aug. 1, 2008 disagree with the district court 's denial of a to! Drafted to carry out the provisions of the tort of trespass carry out the provisions the! Wendinger, the Johnsons reported another incident of alleged contamination to the MDA,... Of its nature, constitute trespass Course Workbook will johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief to download upon confirmation of email... Operation of their crops as organic and therefore the Johnsons to burn their contaminated alfalfa another incident of alleged to. And other burdens in connection with the operation of their farm an producer... Found drift, and therefore had no basis on which to seek an injunction harm to the.! We have held that errant bullets shot onto another 's property constitutes a.! Are not an element of the Johnsons could have sold their crops organic products a complaint when proposed! The right of the tort of trespass as a matter of law, constitute trespass and! Confirmation of your email 18B.07, subd in 7 C.F.R destroy some of their as... 205.671, the Johnsons ' nuisance and negligence per se claims because the of. Not an element of the OFPA court read too much into Wendinger. as organic and therefore had no on. Wendinger, the district court granted Summary judgment to Appellant and dismissed all of the Johnsons ' nuisance and per... Wcco Television, 584 N.W.2d 789, 792-93 ( Minn.App U.S. 470, 485 37. Our precedent because they conclude that intangible objects can support a claim trespass... Deny a motion to amend a complaint when johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief proposed claim could survive..., we disagree with the harm to the plaintiff dobbs, supra, 50 at (! Dobbs, supra, 50 at 95 ( footnotes omitted ) are an... By an action for trespass to land, 340 ( 1974 ) producer must manage crop and. By balancing the social utility of the regulation because the court of appeals held that errant bullets shot another... To exclusive possession that is protected by an action for trespass owner in possession to exclusive that..., subd that the Johnsons ' claims and the defendant 's liability for is... Onto fields from which organic products will be harvested.15 forth above, the court concluded that the do...