Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company

Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2013 · Property

817 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 2012)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyTrespassNuisanceNegligence per seOrganic farming regulationparticulate matterpesticide driftexclusive possession

Facts

The Johnsons operated organic and transitional farm fields adjacent to conventionally farmed land where the Cooperative sprayed pesticides. In 2007 and 2008, pesticides allegedly drifted onto the Johnsons’ fields; testing showed minimal or trace amounts of certain chemicals, and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture required destruction of a portion of one soybean crop because of dicamba presence and visual damage. The Johnsons’ organic certifying agent indicated that if contamination was shown, the land would have to restart the 36-month transition, and the Johnsons took certain fields out of organic production for 3 years. The Johnsons sued for trespass, nuisance, and negligence per se, seeking lost profits, crop-loss damages, inconvenience damages, health-related damages, and injunctive relief.

Issue

Does pesticide drift as particulate matter support a trespass claim in Minnesota? And can the Johnsons recover nuisance and negligence per se damages based on the theory that third-party pesticide drift required their fields to be removed from organic production for 3 years under 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b)?

Rule

In Minnesota, trespass protects the right to exclusive possession and requires an intentional direct and tangible entry onto land; invasions by particulate matter are not trespass, though they may support nuisance or negligence claims. Under 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b), the phrase "applied to it" refers to prohibited substances intentionally applied by the organic producer to the field, not unintended third-party pesticide drift. A plaintiff cannot establish proximate cause against a third party for § 205.202(b)-based losses where the loss resulted from a certifying agent’s erroneous interpretation of the organic regulations.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Iowa near Rochester, Minnesota, Lila Moreno owns a small retreat property next to land sprayed by Prairie Crest Ag Services, a fictional crop applicator. On a windy day, a fine mist of herbicide drifts over and settles invisibly on her meadow, making it unusable for her planned wildflower seed harvest, but no person or larger physical object enters the land.

Under Minnesota law as stated by the majority rule, which claim is most likely to fail as a matter of law on these facts?

Explanation. Minnesota trespass protects exclusive possession and requires an intentional direct and tangible entry. The majority held that particulate matter drift is not trespass, though it may support nuisance or negligence theories because it affects use and enjoyment rather than possession.