## Facts

- Larry Semenza farmed barley on land near Helmville and Utica, Montana, and custom farmed barley for Faye Fitzgerald near Stanford, Montana.
- In spring 1987, Semenza planted Klages barley on approximately 260 acres (Helmville), 180 acres (Utica), and 521 acres (Fitzgerald’s farm near Stanford).
- Semenza hired Ronald Bowman and Eric Johnson, doing business as L & R Spraying Service, to apply herbicide to plaintiffs’ barley crops.
- After the spraying, the barley stands were substantially damaged; the district court found L & R’s spraying caused the damage.
- Plaintiffs sold surviving barley; Semenza received $3.69 per bushel.
- Plaintiffs presented expert evidence estimating yield loss and resulting lost profits based on the price received and projected lost bushels.
- L & R disputed causation and damages and sought to present their own expert opinions on cause, extent of injury, and the proper damages measure; the district court excluded L & R’s expert opinion testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether Fitzgerald’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding L & R’s expert’s opinion testimony.
3. Whether the district court erred in calculating crop-loss damages, including use of $3.69 per bushel and plaintiffs’ yield-loss proof.
4. Whether the district court erred by awarding prejudgment interest.
5. Whether the district court erred in selecting the date from which prejudgment interest accrued.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court in full.
- Fitzgerald’s claim was timely under the applicable limitations period and accrual rules.
- Excluding L & R’s expert opinion testimony was not an abuse of discretion because the district court found inadequate foundation and reliability.
- The damages calculation was upheld; the court permitted valuation using $3.69 per bushel and accepted plaintiffs’ expert yield-loss calculations as supported by the evidence.
- The award of prejudgment interest was affirmed because damages were capable of being made certain by calculation and were ascertainable as of a determinable date.
- The chosen accrual date for prejudgment interest was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Negligent damage to property is governed by Montana’s three-year tort limitations period, and accrual may turn on when the injury was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to qualify experts and admit or exclude expert opinion testimony; reversal requires a clear abuse of discretion.
- Crop-loss damages may be measured flexibly to achieve full compensation; where supported by evidence of customary and foreseeable marketing practices, valuation need not be limited to a single asserted “market at harvest” price.
- Prejudgment interest may be awarded in tort actions when damages are determinable by a fixed formula and the loss is ascertainable at a particular time; trial courts have discretion in selecting the accrual date within statutory limits.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed liability and damages for herbicide-related crop injury, holding that the limitations defense failed, the exclusion of the defense expert was within the trial court’s discretion, crop-loss damages could be valued using evidence of ordinary marketing practices and supported yield-loss proof, and prejudgment interest was proper because the loss was ascertainable by calculation from a determinable date.


Semenza v. Bowman, 268 Mont. 118, 885 P.2d 451 (Mont. 1994)