AGRICULTURAL LAW Lecture 3

1. AGRICULTURAL LAWLecture #3 Tort Law Questions Case name ���� Student Katko Gerry Grabenstein Gerry Ruden Gerry Breece Brooke Baker Howes Andrew Cook

3. Defense of property To protect property from theft, damage or destruction the owner may use force as is reasonably necessary in defending property Excessive force is not allowed and force cannot be used that is likely to lead to great bodily injury or death, unless one�s life is threatened.

4. Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (IA,�71) Facts: Defendant wired the doorknob of a bedroom door in an old farmhouse to the trigger of a 20-gauge shotgun fixed to a bedpost in the room. The farmhouse had been uninhabited for several years and had been subject to vandalism. The plaintiff broke into the house, opened the bedroom door and the resulting shotgun blast severely damaged his leg. Issue: May a landowner protect personal property in an unoccupied, boarded-up farmhouse against trespassers and thieves by using a device capable of inflicting death or serious injury?

5. Katko v. Briney Conclusion: No. A landowner is not privileged to use such force as can lead to great bodily injury or death Unless, the landowner is also threatened with great bodily injury or death.

6. Defense of property - trespassing dogs Grabenstein v. Sunsted, 772 P.2d 865 (Mont. 1989) Facts: Mr. Sunsted heard a dog bark in the vicinity of his chicken coop, grabbed his shotgun from the barn, and found five dead chickens outside the coop. The door to the coop was broken down. Inside the fully enclosed coop, six more chickens were dead. The neighbor�s dog, �Duke� was in the corner of the coop trying to catch the last remaining live chicken. Mr. Sunsted shot the dog, notified the sheriff and buried the dog.

7. Defense of property-- Grabenstein � Issue: Is Sunsted liable for killing �Duke�? Conclusion: No. Sunsted caught �Duke� in the act and the circumstances reveal that it was necessary to shoot the dog. Statutory law has not overridden the common law right.

8. Negligence Failure to render due care under the circumstances The negligence system is a fault-based system Links in the chain of negligence Duty (reasonable and prudent person standard) Breach of Duty Causation Damages

9. Negligence Reasonable foreseeability The plaintiff�s harm must have been a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant�s conduct at the time the conduct occurred. Reasonable foreseeability is the essence of proximate cause!

10. Ruden v. Hansen (p. 15) S.C. of Iowa, 1973 Action: negligence and malpractice Facts: bred gilts to be sold vaccinated for cholera in violation of the label Ruden, the buyer, only had a few pigs from these gilts make it to weaning Issue: Did Hansen follow the proper standard of care under the circumstances?

11. Ruden v. Hansen Applicable Law: negligence and malpractice Holding: New trial There was enough doubt established by the testimony of Ruden�s vet., Dr. Conley, to establish a question for a �jury element� of malpractice.

12. Breece v. Regan, (p. 18) Ct. of App.,MO, 1940; 38 S. W. 2nd 758 Action (law suit for): Issue: Facts: Applicable law: Holding: Rule:

13. Breece v. Regan Action: For a Veterinarian�s negligence Issue: Was Breece guilty of contributory negligence? Facts: Owner, Breece and worker engaged Regan, a Veterinarian, to vaccinate cattle. Owner herded cattle into a shed. Regan, alone in the pen, proceeded to vaccinate cattle, in such a way that the cattle �piled up.� Six cattle died of injuries.

14. Breece Applicable law: Tort and the conditions for contributory negligence. Holding: No! Breece was not guilty of contributory negligence. He, nor his worker were in the pen, and not responsible for what happened. Rule: For contributory negligence to apply, there must be �proximate cause.�

15. Proximate cause-definition Proximate cause is the initial event in a chain of events. Every event is the outcome of a chain (or net) of previous events, but in the words of Bacon "It were infinite for the law to consider the causes of causes, and their impulsions one of another; therefore it contenteth itself with the immediate cause". This immediate or effective cause, not necessarily that closest in time to the event, is termed the proximate cause. A proximate cause is the first event in a chain of events that gives rise to a claim. For example: if a car is driving along and swerves to prevent itself hitting a dog and that then causes damage to a lamp post and 5 other cars then the car that swerved is the proximate cause. See: the famous case -- Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

16. Special situations Last clear chance to avoid injury-- Imposes a duty upon one party to exercise care in avoiding injury to another party who has negligently placed him or herself in danger. Requires knowledge of the plaintiff�s presence, realization of peril, and an ability to avoid any resulting injuries. A duty of reasonable diligence on persons to ascertain the predicament of an individual in peril. �Discovered peril� approach says that if you see a person in peril, you should try and avoid injury to that person.

17. Comparative Fault Most states have adopted some form of a comparative fault system. A plaintiff can recover against a defendant if the plaintiff�s fault is not greater than the defendant�s (collectively)comparative fault -- Indiana rule. How CF works: If plaintiff receives a judgment, the judgment is reduced in proportion to a plaintiff�s negligence.

18. Comparative Fault (CF) CF Replaces the dissatisfaction with the common law, contributory negligence doctrine � including Indiana. CF systems eliminate or modify contributory negligence and other common law defenses.

19. Howe v. Fultz Facts: Hulit the auto driver slammed into a hay baler baler pulled by a tractor at night --despite red lights on the implement, and a slow moving vehicle sign. Hulit had a �day-driving only� license. Howe was a front seat passenger who saw �something� before the crash, but didn�t warn. Jury found damages at $118,000 75% to Hulet, 20% to Fultz and Johnson the driver/ employee and owner of the baler respectively. 5% to Howe was removed by judge.

20. Howe v. Fultz Issue: Was Howe negligent so the jury had a basis for assigning a % of liability to the plaintiff? Holding: Reversed the trial courts JNOV regarding the 5% the jury assigned to Howe.The jury had the evidence to assign liability to the plaintiff. Note the dissent was revealing how appeals court judges may differ in reviewing a trial record. Rule: a plaintiff who is contributorily negligent may recover nevertheless in a comparative fault system.

21. JNOV?* Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or J.N.O.V. for short (Latin Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto) is the practice in American courts whereby the presiding judge in a civil case may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. Requested in civil cases, this remedy permits the judge to exercise discretion to alter a judgment which cannot stand as a matter of law. A losing attorney's motion for a J.N.O.V. is rarely granted by judges, and only in cases, for example, where a jury awards civil damages that are grossly excessive, grossly inadequate, or wholly unsupportable by law. In criminal cases in the U.S., only the defendant (and not the prosecution) may move for a J.N.O.V *From: Internet�Wikimedia, The Free Encyclopecia

22. Burden of Proof The requirement to prove or disprove the existence of liability or the absence of it. In civil actions, the burden is most always a preponderance of the evidence. for proving the elements of negligence In criminal law, the standard is? �Beyond a reasonable doubt�

23. Strict Liability Some activities are so dangerous that a showing of negligence is not required to obtain a recovery. Typically utilized with respect to highly dangerous activities. Fault is not an issue!

24. Strict Liability Wild animals Strict liability for any damages that the animals cause to other persons or their property Hard-hoofed domesticated animals with vicious propensities�not really domesticated. In general, dogs are entitled to their �first bite� before they are considered dangerous. But if a dog owner knows dog is dangerous, �one free bite� rule doesn�t apply.

25. Strict Liability--Examples Storage of water in large quantity Storage & use of explosives Blasting operations Pile driving Drilling oil wells in densely populated areas Crop dusting

26. Unnatural land uses - crop dusting Langan v. Valicopters, Inc., 567 P.2d 218 (Wash. 1977) Facts: Plaintiffs are organic farmers who sell their produce to organic food buyers. Defendant is a cropduster. Land adjacent to plaintiff�s land was sprayed with chemicals and the spray settled on plaintiff�s tomato, bean, garlic, cucumber and artichoke rows. Issue: Is the defendant strictly liable or must negligence be shown?

27. Langan v. Valicopters-Holding There is strict liability--the plaintiffs were eliminated from marketing organic food by no fault of their own. If crop dusting continues on the adjoining property, the pls may never be able to sell their crops to organic food buyers. Defendant, on the other hand, will continue to profit from the application of pesticides. There can be an equitable balancing of social interests only if defendant pays for the consequences of his act.

28. Richard v. Kaufman, U.S. Dist. Ct.E. D. of PA, �42, 47 F. Supp. 337 Action: In tort for strict liabilty. Facts: Pl alleges less spring water due to a nearby blasting activity. And as a result diminished value of pl�s farm. Jury awarded $1,200 to pl. Def. Appeals. Issue: Is there a basis for strict liability?

29. Richard v. Kaufman Holding and Law: For the pl affirmed. Blasting is ultra-hazardous activity! There need not be negligence by the blaster to find liability, only a showing of resulting damage. Such damage may be from underground vibrations. Apparently, testimony was sufficient to allow a jury to find causation.

30. Quiz #1 True or false. 1. To be guilty of negligence, �the injurious act� must have been on purpose. 2. The Indiana Court of Appeals is a trial court. 3. A lay person may represent him or herself before an Indiana small claims court. 4. Tort actions in common law may be totally defended (escape liability) if the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. 5. Even with the �law on your side,� you may not win!