## Facts

- Wendell Wenner, Jr., a Minnesota farmer, bought 32 five-gallon cans of Gulf Oil Corporation’s herbicide “Outfox” in June 1974 for use on a 150-acre corn field with 4–6 inch weeds.
- Because the field was too wet for ground equipment, Wenner had Nicollet Ag Services arrange aerial application; Raymond Gieseke performed the spraying.
- The label specified an application rate to control 6-inch weeds but contained no recommendations or warnings about aerial application.
- Approximately 134 acres were treated with Outfox, while a 16-acre strip was left untreated; the corn crop showed no visible damage and the weeds died.
- The following season Wenner planted spring wheat on the same 150 acres; wheat on the previously untreated strip appeared normal, while wheat on the treated acreage became unhealthy and produced a significantly lower yield.
- Soil tests detected cyprazine (Outfox’s active ingredient) and atrazine (from prior years); evidence supported that cyprazine persisted in the soil and injured the wheat crop.
- Outfox’s label included a specific assurance against carryover damage to subsequent crops and also included general disclaimer language.
- Wenner sued Gulf for breach of warranty seeking crop-damage losses; Gulf filed third-party claims for contribution/indemnity against Nicollet Ag Services and Gieseke.
- The trial court directed verdicts for the third-party defendants, the jury awarded Wenner $10,164 against Gulf, and the court denied Gulf’s motion for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Outfox breached an express or implied warranty by causing carryover damage to Wenner’s subsequent wheat crop.
2. Whether general disclaimer language on the product label could limit or negate a specific label warranty against carryover damage.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find causation attributable to Outfox rather than other agronomic or chemical factors.
4. Whether the directed verdicts dismissing Gulf’s contribution/indemnity claims against the aerial applicator and service company were erroneous.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Wenner and the order denying Gulf’s motion for a new trial.
- The court held the record permitted the jury to find that Outfox carried over in the soil and reduced the wheat yield on the treated acreage, constituting breach of warranty.
- The court rejected Gulf’s reliance on general disclaimer language to avoid liability for a specific label assurance against carryover damage.
- The court upheld the directed verdicts for Nicollet Ag Services and Gieseke because Gulf did not present sufficient evidence that negligent application or misuse by them caused the loss.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer’s specific product-label statements concerning performance or safety can create an enforceable express warranty supporting recovery for crop losses when the product performs contrary to that representation.
- General disclaimers are strictly construed and will not be applied to nullify a specific, affirmative label warranty addressing the very risk that occurred.
- Causation in agricultural chemical warranty litigation may be proved through comparative field results (treated versus untreated areas), soil testing, timing, and other circumstantial evidence; where supported, causation is for the jury.
- A manufacturer may not shift liability to applicators absent proof that independent negligent application or misuse, rather than the product’s properties and labeling, caused the damage.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a jury verdict holding the herbicide manufacturer liable for breach of a label warranty against carryover damage when residue from the product injured a subsequent wheat crop, and it refused to let a general label disclaimer defeat that specific warranty or support shifting liability to the aerial applicators without evidence of their fault.


Wenner v. Gulf Oil Corp., 264 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. 1978)