Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Under Louisiana Right to Farm Law, Plaintiff Must Establish Generally
Accepted Agricultural Standards

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Albert v. Peavey Co., No. 04-1611, 2009 WL 321934 (E.D. La. Feb. 6, 2009), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted ConAgra Food Inc.'s motion for summary judgment based on the Louisiana Right to Farm Law, La. Rev. Stat. § 3:3603 et seq. This class action lawsuit was brought in response to the alleged tortious operation of the defendant's grain elevators. After discovery regarding Louisiana's Right to Farm Law closed, the defendant successfully motioned for summary judgment.

Background

In response to the drifting of "fugitive dust emissions" allegedly caused by the defendant's tortious operation of his grain elevators, a group of citizens brought the instant class action lawsuit charging the defendant with actionable nuisance. Id. at *1. The class presented evidence showing that the defendant had received three previous citations for "alleged emissions violations" stemming from its grain elevator operations, presented evidence of damages allegedly caused by the defendant's operations, complained about their inability to access the defendant's record keeping to determine its compliance with generally accepted agricultural practices, and "allud[ed] to the notion that the defendant carrie[d] the burden of proving that it was in conformity with generally accepted agricultural practices." Id. The class argued that all of the above evidenced that the defendant was not in conformity with generally accepted agricultural practices. Id. The defendant argued that it was protected from suit by Louisiana's Right to Farm Law. Id.

Arguments

The defendant argued in favor of summary judgment, pointing to the fact that the class "ha[d] failed to offer evidence [establishing] generally accepted agricultural practices." Id. Without this evidence, the defendant asserted that the jury would lack "the proper framework to compare the grain emissions of the defendant" alongside accepted practices and would be unable to determine whether or not it was in breach. Id.

The class argued that it presented enough evidence to show that the defendant was not in conformity with generally accepted agricultural practices. Id. In addition, the class argued for equitable estoppel based on the defendant's failure to keep adequate records, which allegedly hindered the class's ability to prove a breach of generally accepted agricultural principles. Id. at *7.

Each party claimed that the other carried the burden of establishing what constituted generally accepted agricultural practices. Id. at *2.

Analysis and Holdings

The court explained that the issue concerning who bore the burden of establishing generally accepted agricultural practices as outlined in the Louisiana Right to Farm Law was one of first impression; however, it held that "both the Right to Farm Law and Louisiana's jurisprudence in analogous circumstances indicate[d] that the burden [was] on the plaintiff to prove a deviation from generally accepted agricultural practices." Id. In addition, the court held that "a statutory presumption exist[ed] that agricultural practices are in compliance with generally accepted practices." Id. at *4.

Next, the court addressed the extent to which lay testimony could be used to establish generally accepted practices or establish a breach of generally accepted practices under the Louisiana Right to Farm Law. Id. at *6. Class members presented lay testimony regarding the amount of dust created by the defendant's grain elevators that allegedly drifted onto class members' properties. Id. at *7. However, because generally accepted agricultural standards were not established, the court stated that it was impossible to determine whether the standards were violated, especially from testimony of a lay witness. Id. at *7.

Lastly, the court addressed the class's argument regarding equitable estoppel. Id. The class argued that the defendant's failure to keep adequate records hindered its ability to prove breach of generally accepted agricultural standards. Id. The court held that the class could have used other sources to establish the standards. Id. For this reason, the court concluded, the "defendant should not be punished for failure to maintain records while the plaintiff [was] rewarded for less than diligent discovery practices." Id.

For these reasons, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The case was decided on February 6, 2009.