The plaintiffs sued the defendant in federal court for negligence in allowing the bull to escape its enclosure. The pickup rolled numerous times injuring the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, a married couple from Indiana, were westbound on I-70 when the Ford F-150 pickup they were driving hit the defendant’s deceased bull in the roadway. Posted April 18, 2023įact Issues Remain in Auto/Livestock Accident. The Court did not address the plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to the damages limitations in Iowa Code §657.11A(3). The Iowa Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to preserve error on his takings claim under article I, section 18 of the Iowa Constitution and failed to generate a question of fact precluding summary judgment on statutory nuisance immunity or causation for his trespass and drainage claims. On further review, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed and applied rational basis review to reject the plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to Iowa Code §657.11. The trial court then granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion based on the plaintiff’s failure to provide any expert testimony (the plaintiff’s ag engineering degree from Iowa State University was insufficient to qualify himself personally as an expert) or other evidence to support any exception to the statutory immunity defense or to prove causation or damages. The trial court, noting that the plaintiff’s own CAFO had benefited from immunity, rejected the plaintiff’s constitutional challenge for failure to satisfy the three-part test in Gacke. 2d 168 (Iowa 2004) claimed that Iowa Code §657.11 as applied to him was unconstitutional under Iowa’s inalienable rights clause. Iowa Code §657.11 provides nuisance immunity to a CAFO if the CAFO is following all applicable regulations and is using accepted management practices. The defendant moved for summary judgment based on statutory immunity of Iowa Code § 657.11 and the plaintiff’s lack of evidence or expert testimony. The plaintiff then sued the defendant in state court for nuisance, trespass and violation of state drainage law. The federal court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims. The federal court dismissed the suit on summary judgment for lack of expert testimony to establish the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s neighboring confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) violated federal law due to manure runoff that caused excessive nitrate levels in the plaintiff’s water sources. Posted April 18, 2023ĬAFO Not in Violation of State Law. The appellate court agreed and remanded the case for a determination of the appropriate amount of costs and fees to be awarded. The trial court determined that the defendant was using his property as a farm and was therefore immune from nuisance claims and dismissed the case The district court denied both parties award of costs and expenses, and the defendant appealed on that issue, claiming that he should recover reasonably incurred costs and expenses. The defendant claimed he was immune from nuisance claims under the Michigan Right-to-Farm law (RTF). The plaintiff township filed a civil infraction citation against the defendant for the building of a “junkyard” on his property without a permit and for an insufficient fence. Posted April 18, 2023įarming Operation Entitled to Costs and Fees of Dismissed Nuisance Claims. The trial court, however, dismissed the fraud claim involving the efficacy of corn seed. The salesman moved to dismiss each claim, but the trial court denied the motion with respect to the contract interference and interference with business relationship claims. Specifically, the plaintiff’s claims against the salesman were for interference with contract, interference with business relationship, and fraud. The plaintiff claimed that the salesman wrongly advised the landlord and encouraged the landlord to complain about the plaintiff’s farming practices. The plaintiff, a farm tenant, sued the defendant landlord and a third-party ag salesman. Posted April 18, 2023įarmer Sues Crop Salesman for Ruining Relationship with Landowner the Farmer Rented From. This page contains summaries of significant recent court opinions involving tort liability cases of importance to agricultural producers and rural landowners.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |