Loren Pratt, Loren Pratt Farms v. Pride of San Juan Inc. Reference : 1 CA-CV 07-0820. Complaint date : January 29, 2009 Status : Final judgment Place of jurisdiction : United States, Arizona Plaintiffs types : Farmers, Individuals Plaintiffs names : Loren Pratt Defendants : Farmers, Other Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice : No description Case nature : Civil court Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) : Other Requests : Annulment of a decision condemning Loren Pratt to pay compensation for damage caused to their crop following the aerial spraying of an unauthorized pesticide, on the grounds of vicarious liability and negligence. Name of the Court : Court of Appeal of Arizona, United States Jurisdiction level : Decision date : January 29, 2009 Decision nature : Positive Decision content : Loren Pratt is convicted of negligence. Legal basis : Court Ruling : Link to the ruling Summary : On January 29, 2009, the Arizona Court of Appeals held farmer Loren Pratt liable for the negligent application of pesticide by one of his contractors. In 2003, Loren Pratt, owner of Loren Pratt Farms, planted 15 hectares of broccoli in Arizona and hired Sunland Chemical Company to determine what type of pesticide to use on his crops. The recommended pesticide, authorized for use on Loren Pratt Farms plots, had not been approved by federal authorities for use on a neighboring farm, Pride of San Juan. Nevertheless, Loren Pratt decided to hire Tri-Rotor AG Services to spray the pesticides from the air, using a techinque called "aerial dusting". The pesticides contaminated Pride of San Juan's crops. As the contamination made it impossible to sell its crops, Pride of San Juan sued Loren Pratt, Sunland and Tri-Rotor for negligence. The trial court ordered Tri-Rotor to pay $450,000 for damages suffered as a result of its negligence, but dismissed Pride of San Juan's claim insofar as it related to Sunland. Loren Pratt was also found guilty of vicarious negligence, a decision he has appealed. In his defense, Loren Pratt argued, among other things, that he could not be held vicariously liable because the practice of aerial "dusting" is not an inherently dangerous activity, thanks to the development of new technologies. On the contrary, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that, since the dangerousness of a spraying activity depends on each individual case, it was appropriate, given the "high probability that toxic residues or sprays will spread to adjacent or nearby properties", to declare the spraying an intrinsically dangerous activity. This qualification enabled the Court to hold Loren Pratt liable. Scientific references : No scientifice reference for this case. Related links : No related link for this case.