Burlingame v. Paul & Suzanna M. Dagostin, Douglas Zehner, & Country View Family Farms, LLC
183 A.3d 462
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- The Dagostin family operated Will-O-Bett Farm since 1955 and in 2011 converted part of the farm into a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) for finishing pigs, including a 40,000 sq ft barn and a 1.8 million gallon manure storage pit.
- The CAFO received conditional local approval, land development approval, and an approved nutrient management plan before commencing operations; first pigs arrived Jan. 23, 2013.
- Defendants began spreading liquid swine manure (LSM) on surrounding fields (Defendants say June 2013; Plaintiffs say widespread application began in April 2014).
- Two sets of neighboring landowners filed private-nuisance suits (2014 and 2015) alleging odors and contamination from LSM spreading and storage.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment invoking 3 P.S. § 954(a) of Pennsylvania’s Right to Farm Act (RTFA), which bars nuisance suits against agricultural operations that have operated lawfully for one year where complained-of conditions existed substantially unchanged or where expansions were addressed by an approved nutrient management plan.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants; the Superior Court affirmed, holding RTFA immunity applied because the farm (the agricultural operation) had substantially expanded and had an approved nutrient management plan with which Defendants were in compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What constitutes the "agricultural operation" under § 954(a)? | The operative activity is the CAFO and its LSM spreading; immunity should not preclude nuisance claims based on a later change in spreading practices. | The farm (Will-O-Bett) is the agricultural operation; the CAFO was an expansion of that farm. | The Court held the agricultural operation is the Will-O-Bett Farm (the farm itself), not the discrete activity. |
| Does § 954(a) bar Plaintiffs’ nuisance claims where LSM spreading post-dates one year before suit? | LSM spreading began (or materially changed) within one year of suit so the statute of repose should not bar claims. | Because the CAFO construction was a substantial alteration addressed by an approved nutrient management plan, the statutory exemption applies; Plaintiffs must show noncompliance to avoid immunity. | The Court held immunity applies: the farm substantially expanded, the expansion was covered by an approved nutrient management plan, and Plaintiffs failed to present competent evidence of noncompliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. Synagro Central, LLC, 131 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2015) (RTFA §954(a) is a statute of repose; analysis of "agricultural operation" and normal agricultural operations)
- Horne v. Haladay, 728 A.2d 954 (Pa. Super. 1999) (application of one-year bar where later changes could start new period but outcome unaffected)
- Branton v. Nicholas Meat, LLC, 159 A.3d 540 (Pa. Super. 2017) (construction of large storage tank held a substantial physical change for RTFA purposes)