The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning,
holding, inter alia:
1) Lawsuit against Pesticide Applicator reinstated
Summary follows:
JUCHT v. SCHULZ, 2024 S.D. 46: Soybean farmed sued neighbor
for crop damage arising out of neighbor’s spraying of pesticide which
drifted. The trial court dismissed the
lawsuit on the basis of “failure to state a claim” because the Complaint did not allege compliance with SDCL
38-21-46’s thirty (30) day notice requirement for actions against a “pesticide applicator.” The SD Supreme Court reversed,
acknowledging that farmer’s Complaint’s alleged, “actual notice of DANR’s investigation of [farmer’s] complaint” filed by farmer with the South Dakota Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR).
And, by further holding:
[¶9.] … While
SDCL 38-21-46 requires that the person claiming damage give notice of the
alleged damage to the pesticide applicator, failure to provide such notice does
not bar the claimant from bringing their claim.∗ Instead, a claimant is barred from seeking recovery under SDCL
38-21-47 when the claimant “fails to allow entry” to the pesticide applicator
to observe and inspect the alleged damage.
In the footnote corresponding to the “*” in the language above,
the Court distinguishes the language of this pesticide applicator statute (SDCL
38-21-46) from the language of SDCL 3-21-2 which imposes a 180 notice requirement
for suits against a public entity.
This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by
Justice Myren.
This decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
