Sun Pacific Farming Cooperative Inc. v. Don Valpredo Custom Farming, LLC
Published: May 10, 2008 | Result Date: Dec. 19, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: S-1500-CV-259106-WDP Verdict – Defense
Court
Kern Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Dennis Culver
(technical)
Defendant
Ben Laverty
(technical)
Facts
On Aug. 5, 6, and 8 of 2005, about 1,100 to 1,300 employees of plaintiff Sun Pacific Farming Cooperative, a large farming company, were harvesting grapes on sections of a 400-acre vineyard near Mettler, California. The vineyard was located north of an 80-acre carrot field being farmed by Val Mar Farms. Employees of defendant, Don Valpredo Custom Farming LLC, were applying Metam Sodium, a fumigant, to the carrot field through sprinkler irrigation. Workers from Sun Pacific smelled odors and claimed they became ill. The Kern County Fire Department sent an emergency response team to the scene to wash down some workers who claimed they were ill. All the workers of Sun Pacific were sent home without being allowed to enter the fields to work on the third day.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Sun Pacific sued Val Mar and Don Valpredo Custom Farming, claiming negligence, nuisance and trespass. Sun claimed that Val Mar and Don Valpredo did not properly seal the carrot field with a sprinkler irrigation or application of water after the fumigant was applied which might have prevented it from vaporizing and heading toward Sun Pacific vineyards.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defense argued that Sun Pacific was negligent in not delaying harvest and not keeping workers from the vineyard north of the carrot field, after Don Valpredo had given notice of the fumigant application to Sun Pacific.
Damages
The plaintiff sought recovery of $92,000 in wages paid to workers who were sent home, because it was required to pay workers who appeared for work but had to leave before working a full day.
Result
The jury returned a defense verdict finding there was no negligence and no nuisance. The trial judge granted a non-suit as to the trespass cause of action, finding no damage to the property of the plaintiff; without this element being satisfied, the cause of action failed as a matter of law.
Other Information
Defendants filed a cost bill post trial.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390