944 F.3d 975
8th Cir.2019Background
- Keller Farms (plaintiff) alleged that herbicide applied by or for neighboring farms—including aerial spraying by Dennis McGarity for the Stewarts—drifted onto its property in April–May 2015 and damaged crops and windbreak/ornamental trees.
- Missouri Dept. of Agriculture investigator issued a February 2016 warning letter finding it "more likely than not" McGarity’s chemicals drifted onto Keller Farms; the Department did not order restitution.
- Keller Farms sued applicators and landowners for negligence, negligence per se, and statutory trespass (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.340); most defendants were later dismissed or settled, leaving the Stewarts as defendants at trial.
- Before trial, the district court limited the statutory-trespass claim to tree damage (excluding crop damage under § 537.340) and excluded several Department warning letters and related testimony.
- At trial the court directed a verdict for the Stewarts on the trespass count for lack of proof of tree-damage diminution in real-estate value; the jury returned verdicts for the Stewarts on negligence and negligence per se.
- Keller Farms’ motion for a new trial was denied; on appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper scope of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.340 (trees vs. crops) | § 537.340 allows recovery for "injury" to crops as well as trees; Keller Farms should recover for crop damage | The statute expressly permits "injury" for trees but only enumerates removal or cutting for crops/plants, so crops are not covered | Affirmed: statute is plain—only tree "injury" is actionable under § 537.340; crop claims not recoverable under that provision |
| Sufficiency of evidence for statutory-trespass tree damages | Keller Farms presented evidence (expert trunk‑formula, prior purchase price) showing trees lacked separate market value and that damages reduced property value | Plaintiff failed to prove diminution in fair market value immediately before and after the trespass; offered valuations were not tied to the relevant timing or measure | Affirmed: under Missouri law diminution-in-value of real estate is the exclusive measure for non‑market trees; Keller Farms failed to prove that measure |
| Admissibility of Department warning letters and Slade’s testimony | Letters and Slade’s testimony are probative (official findings) and admissible to show cause/responsibility | Letters and testimony are prejudicial, invade the jury’s province, and constitute impermissible propensity/evidence of other wrongs | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion excluding the letters and Slade’s ultimate-opinion testimony under Rules 403 and 404 principles and related precedent |
| New trial claim — verdict against weight of evidence and improper closing | Jury verdict disregards overwhelming evidence of drift; opposing counsel urged sympathy/jury nullification | Jury heard competing evidence; district court instructions and opportunity to rebut cured any alleged closing‑argument prejudice | Affirmed: denial of new trial was not an abuse of discretion; evidence supported verdict and instructions/rebuttal cured any prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Kearney Special Road Dist. v. Cty. of Clay, 863 S.W.2d 841 (Mo. 1993) (plain‑meaning rule for statutory interpretation)
- Barnes v. Ark.-Mo. Power Co., 281 S.W. 93 (Mo. Ct. App. 1926) (measure of damages for windbreak/ornamental trees is diminution in land value)
- Ridgway v. TTnT Dev. Corp., 126 S.W.3d 807 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (clarifies Tong and confirms diminution‑in‑value as measure under § 537.340)
- Tong v. Kincaid, 47 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001) (discusses alternative measures; later limited by Ridgway)
- Disalvo Props., LLC v. Bluff View Commercial, LLC, 464 S.W.3d 243 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) (useful to consider related statutes in interpretation)
- Robertson v. Norton Co., 148 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 1998) (warning against expert testimony on ultimate issues that invade the jury’s province)
- Johnson v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 734 F.2d 1304 (8th Cir. 1984) (trial court discretion to exclude administrative findings when they are conclusory and duplicative)
- Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc., 853 F.3d 414 (8th Cir. 2017) (appellate deference to district court’s evidentiary discretion)
- Keenan v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 13 F.3d 1266 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard for reviewing new‑trial motions alleging verdict contrary to weight of evidence)
- Harrison v. Purdy Bros. Trucking Co., 312 F.3d 346 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard for new trial based on improper closing argument)
- Billingsley v. City of Omaha, 277 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 2002) (cautionary jury instructions can cure prejudice from counsel’s remarks)