California Court of Appeal

In plaintiff's suit claiming that pesticides defendant supplied to fields near plaintiff's farm migrated to plaintiff's land, contaminated plaintiff's crop, and rendered the crop unmarketable, jury's verdict against the defendant in awarding plaintiff $1 million for the 2007 loss but nothing for 2006 is affirmed where: 1) defendant's argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, except as allowed by the pesticide laws, to issue an injunction controlling the place where pesticides may be applied, is dismissed as moot; 2) plaintiff's causes of action for negligence, trespass, and nuisance are not displaced by the pesticide laws, as the statutory scheme leaves ample room for such claims; 3) the negligence and trespass causes of action were not barred by an administrative determination that defendant had complies with the pesticide laws; and 4) the trial court did not err by instructing the jury in the doctrine of negligence per se, and Civil Code section 3482 does not bar the nuisance cause of action.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/20/2010
• Published 12/20/2010

Judges

• Premo

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Richard H. Nakamura Jr., Austin B. Comstock