## Facts

- Patrick and Dorothy Langan operated a small organic farm in the Yakima Valley and marketed crops under an organic producers’ association standard that severely limited pesticide residue.
- Thalheimer Farms, adjoining the Langan property, hired Valicopters, Inc. to apply pesticides by helicopter; Gene Bepple piloted the helicopter.
- On June 3, 1973, Valicopters aerially applied pesticides (including Thiodan/endosulfan and a smaller amount of Guthion) to Thalheimer’s property using a helicopter with a wide application boom flying low and at speed.
- Some amount of pesticide drifted onto the Langans’ property; the extent and precise pass pattern were disputed, but drift itself was not.
- Testing of the Langans’ tomatoes showed Thiodan residue of 1.4 ppm, which was below the FDA tolerance (2 ppm) but above the organic association’s limit (10% of the FDA tolerance).
- Because the residue exceeded the organic standard, the Langans’ affected crops could not be marketed as organic; the tomato and bean crops were destroyed, and the Langans claimed resulting economic loss.
- A jury was instructed on strict liability, returned a verdict for the Langans, and awarded $5,500 in damages; Valicopters appealed, and the case was reviewed by the Washington Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether aerial application of pesticides under these circumstances is an abnormally dangerous activity that triggers strict liability for harm caused by pesticide drift under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519–520.
2. Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on strict liability for the spraying activity.
3. Whether damages were recoverable where residue was within federal tolerances but caused loss of organic marketability under the plaintiffs’ organic standards.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the Langans.
- The court held that aerial pesticide application in this setting qualified as an abnormally dangerous activity under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519–520.
- Valicopters could be held strictly liable for harm proximately caused by pesticide drift, regardless of due care.
- The court permitted recovery for the economic loss tied to the crops’ loss of organic marketability and the destruction of contaminated crops.

## Legal Principles

- One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is strictly liable for resulting harm to another’s person, land, or chattels, even if the actor exercised the utmost care. (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 519)
- Whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is determined by considering, in combination, the § 520 factors: risk of harm, severity of potential harm, inability to eliminate risk by reasonable care, common usage, appropriateness to place, and whether community value is outweighed by dangerous attributes.
- Aerial pesticide spraying may be deemed abnormally dangerous when drift risk is substantial, drift cannot be fully controlled by reasonable care, and the spraying occurs near neighboring uses especially susceptible to harm from low-level contamination.
- Damages may include foreseeable economic loss where contamination prevents a crop from meeting a known or reasonably foreseeable market standard (such as organic certification), even if contamination remains within general regulatory tolerances for food safety.

## Conclusion

The court imposed strict liability for pesticide drift from aerial spraying, classifying the activity as abnormally dangerous under Restatement §§ 519–520, and allowed damages based on the foreseeable loss of organic marketability caused by contamination of neighboring crops.


Langan v. Valicopters, Inc., 567 P.2d 218 (Wash. 1977)