In 1957, Louisiana was the first state to impose strict liability for damages caused
by the aerial application of pesticides. In the case ofGotreaux v. Gary, the defendant
sprayed his rice crop with 2,4-D. This herbicide drifted onto the plaintiff ’s cotton
and pea crops located more than three miles away and destroyed them. The court
recognized the necessity of applying pesticides, but held that the plaintiff could not be
unreasonably inconvenienced or denied the right to enjoy his property. The court
summed up the effect of the application of strict liability: ‘‘negligence or fault, in these
instances, is not a requisite to liability irrespective of the fact that the activities resulting
in damages are conducted with...reasonable care and in accordance with modern and
accepted methods.’’
In 1961, the Oregon Supreme Court inLoe v. Lenhardtimposed strict liability in
an unintentional trespass suit, finding that there was no need to prove fault or negli-
gence where the defendants were engaged in an ‘‘extra-hazardous’’ activity. In this
case, the defendants were using a mixture of dinitro and diesel oil as an herbicide.
The spray drifted, having, in the court’s words, a ‘‘swift and drastic effect’’ on the
plaintiff ’s crops.
The court, noting ‘‘the high degree of danger inherent in the spraying of agricul-
tural chemicals from the aircraft,’’ determined that strict liability should attach to the
activity. The court stated the usual justification for the imposition of strict liability
rather than a negligence standard: ‘‘element of fault, if it can be called that, lies in the
deliberated choice by the defendant to inflict a degree of risk upon his neighbor, even
though utmost care is observed in doing so.’’
The Washington State Supreme Court in 1977 imposed strict liability on crop
spraying operations inLangen v. Helicopters. In this case the plaintiffs were organic
farmers. The defendant’s helicopter sprayed a neighboring farm with the pesticides
Thiodan and Guthion. The plaintiffs sought damages for pesticides that drifted onto
their crop of organically grown vegetables, rendering them worthless as certified or-
ganic produce.
The plaintiffs proceeded to destroy their crop, and filed a claim for full damages.
In upholding a verdict in the plaintiffs’ favor, the court applied the test for imposi-
tion of strict liability, and concluded that crop spraying was an abnormally dangerous
activity, justifying the imposition of strict liability. In reaching this conclusion, the
court stressed that there was no proof to suggest that it is possible to eliminate the
risk of drift by the exercise of reasonable care. The court added that while aerial
application was prevalent in the area, it was carried out by a relatively small number
of people. In justifying its decision to impose strict liability, the court stated that
those who perform useful but dangerous activities must be held accountable for any
damages that result.^19
Pesticide Drift Incidents Affecting Human Health
A family from White Hall, Maryland, has been exposed to numerous pesticide
drift incidents. A neighboring farmer routinely sprays his fields with paraquat, 2,4-D,
Pesticides in the Air, Water, and Soil | 197