## Facts

- Oluf and Debra Johnson operated certified organic crop and dairy farms in central Minnesota.
- Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. applied pesticides to conventionally farmed fields adjacent to the Johnsons’ land.
- The Johnsons alleged that pesticide spray drifted onto and contaminated their organic fields and crops.
- The Johnsons claimed economic losses from removing fields from organic production for three years and destroying affected crops, plus inconvenience and adverse health effects.
- The Johnsons asserted tort claims including trespass, nuisance, and negligence per se, with some theories relying on the Organic Foods Production Act and National Organic Program regulations, including 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b).

## Issues

1. Whether Minnesota recognizes trespass claims based on pesticide particulate drift onto another’s land.
2. Whether 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b) regulates pesticide drift such that drift can support nuisance and negligence per se claims.
3. Whether claims not based on trespass or § 205.202(b) were improperly dismissed on summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota does not recognize trespass by particulate matter; dismissal of the trespass claim was proper.
- The court held that 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b) addresses intentional application of prohibited substances to organic fields by the organic producer and does not regulate third-party pesticide drift; dismissal of nuisance and negligence per se claims premised on § 205.202(b) was proper.
- The court affirmed reinstatement of the Johnsons’ remaining non-trespass claims not grounded in § 205.202(b), because the district court failed to analyze whether those claims could survive summary judgment.
- Disposition: reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- In Minnesota, trespass protects exclusive possession and is limited to tangible invasions; intangible or microscopic particulate intrusions (such as pesticide drift) do not constitute trespass.
- Nuisance addresses unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of land and is the more appropriate tort framework for particulate intrusions, subject to proof requirements for that cause of action.
- Negligence per se requires violation of an applicable legal standard; 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b) does not create a drift-based prohibition applicable to neighboring pesticide applicators.
- A trial court must separately assess whether alternative nuisance and negligence theories, independent of rejected legal predicates, present triable issues on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court refused to extend Minnesota trespass to pesticide particulate drift and rejected regulatory-based nuisance and negligence per se theories under 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b), but allowed the farmers’ other nuisance and negligence claims to proceed on remand for evaluation under ordinary tort standards.


Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 2012)