Liability for Spraying: Herbicide Drift
-
Liability for Damage Caused by Agricultural Chemical Drift
- Legal
Aspects of Herbicide Drift
- Pesticide
Spray Drift
-
Survey of State Pesticide Regulatory Agencies: Spray Drift Complaints
and How They Were Resolved
- North
American Conference on Pesticide Spray Drift Management
- Draft
Pesticide Registration Notice: Spray and Dust Drift Label Statements
for Pesticide Products
- McLain v. Johnson, 885 SW2d 345 (MO Ct
App l994): Plaintiff had a watermelon crop on land next to a neighbor
who contracted with the defendant aerial applicator to spray herbicide
(including 2,4-DB among others) on his soybean crop. Plaintiff claimed
the defendant was negligent in the aerial application. The trial court
(sitting without a jury) entered judgment for the defendant. Judgment
affirmed on appeal. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that
the defendant had to disprove his negligence since aerial spraying is an
inherently dangerous activity. Instead, the plaintiff had the burden
of proving not only that his watermelon crop was damaged but also that the
defendant was negligent in the aerial spraying. And the plaintiff (in
both courts' opinions) failed to carry this burden of proof, instead relying
on the "sudden onset doctrine" to no avail. The
defendant argued that there was at least one week between the spraying and
the watermelon plant loss, that there may have been residues in the
soil from the plaintiff's spraying on soybeans on that plot the previous
year, and that the wind while blowing on the day of aerial application was
coming from the wrong direction to blow spray over the watermelons.
-
Anderson v.
State Department of Natural Resources Minnesota