Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Farm Service, Inc.
119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 529
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Jacobs Farm sued Western Farm Service for 2006 and 2007 crop losses from pesticides drifting onto Wilder Ranch organic crops.
- Jury found negligence, trespass, and nuisance; awarded $1 million for 2007 but nothing for 2006.
- Pesticide laws regulate use; deputy commissioner concluded no violations in 2006/2007; permits and buffer rules apply.
- Volatilization caused postapplication drift affecting herbs; EPA tolerances for these herbs are nonexistent; crops were unmarketable.
- Plaintiff sought injunctive relief; TRO granted then dissolved; later a half-mile buffer was imposed in 2008.
- Trial focused on damages; defense asserted compliance with law; court instructed negligence per se; issues of exhaustion and estoppel arose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do pesticide laws displace common law damages? | Plaintiff argues common law damages remain. | Defendant argues laws occupy field and displace damages claims. | Pesticide laws do not displace common law damages. |
| Is injunctive relief over pesticide use judgeship properly before court? | Plaintiff seeks injunction to control pesticide placement. | Defendant says court lacks jurisdiction except per pesticide laws. | Injunctive issue moot; not decided. |
| Does deputy commissioner’s no-violation finding bar damages via collateral estoppel? | Findings have potential collateral estoppel effect. | Findings are final administrative determinations. | Collateral estoppel does not bar damages claims. |
| Was negligence per se properly instructed given §6614? | Regulation defines standard of care for per se instruction. | Instruction improperly overlapped agency findings. | Negligence per se instruction proper; standard set by statute. |
| Does Civil Code §3482 bar nuisance claim here? | Statutes authorize the regulated activity; nuisance claim permissible. | Authorized activity cannot be a nuisance. | Nuisance claim not barred by §3482. |
Key Cases Cited
- Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Service, Inc., 22 Cal.4th 316 (Cal. 2000) (lays framework for pesticide regulation and oversight)
- Zengen, Inc. v. Comerica Bank, 41 Cal.4th 239 (Cal. 2007) (preemption and occupancy of field principles)
- K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc., 171 Cal.App.4th 939 (Cal. App. 2009) (occupies field; regulatory framework interpretation)
- Patterson Flying Service v. Department of Pesticide Regulation, 161 Cal.App.4th 411 (Cal. App. 2008) (administrative review and quasi-judicial proceedings)
- Varjabedian v. City of Madera, 20 Cal.3d 285 (Cal. 1977) (Civil Code §3482 limited; authorization must be explicitlikel)
- Elsworth v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 37 Cal.3d 540 (Cal. 1984) (negligence per se and administrative certification compatibility)