Hahn v. Weber & Sons Co.
| Decision Date | 18 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-408,85-408 |
| Citation | 223 Neb. 426,390 N.W.2d 503 |
| Parties | Joseph HAHN, Appellant, v. WEBER & SONS CO., a Nebraska Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Proximate Cause: Proof. It is the plaintiff's burden to establish the proximate cause of his injury.
2. Evidence: Proximate Cause. Where the evidence as to proximate cause is in conflict, a question is presented for the trier of fact, and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover as a matter of law.
3. Proximate Cause: Liability: Damages: Negligence. Where the injury is the result of two separate, independent causes, and the defendant is responsible for only one of the causes, the plaintiff must establish that the entire damage would have occurred from the cause for which the defendant is liable or establish the amount of damage directly caused by the defendant's negligence.
Rex Robert Schultze, Lincoln, for appellant.
Gary J. Nedved of Marti, Dalton, Bruckner, O'Gara & Keating, P.C., Lincoln, for appellee.
The plaintiff, Joseph Hahn, commenced this action to recover damages for the reduced yield of his soybean crop allegedly caused by the negligent spraying of Banvel herbicide and 2, 4-D with ester by the defendant, Weber & Sons Co. The county court found for the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's amended petition. Upon appeal to the district court the judgment was affirmed. The plaintiff has now appealed to this court.
The plaintiff and the defendant farm adjacent land in Saline County, Nebraska. In the spring of 1983 the plaintiff planted soybeans in a 60-acre tract lying directly north of a 231-acre tract owned by the defendant. A county road separates the plaintiff's land from the defendant's property. The plaintiff also planted soybeans in a 102-acre tract located approximately 2 1/2 miles south of the plaintiff's 60-acre tract. The defendant did not cultivate the 231-acre tract because it had been placed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture payment-in-kind program (PIK). The defendant admitted spraying its 231 acres with a combination of Banvel herbicide and 2,4-D with ester between July 6 and 12, 1983, in an effort to control the weeds on the acreage.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in spraying herbicide too closely to the plaintiff's land when atmospheric conditions were such that the spray or vapor drift from the herbicide would damage the plaintiff's sensitive soybeans. The plaintiff further alleged that, as a direct and proximate result of defendant's negligence, the plaintiff's soybean crop was damaged and partially destroyed, with the grade of the remaining crop substantially lower than it should have been. By comparing the per-acre yield on the 60-acre tract with the yield on the 102-acre tract, the plaintiff concluded that he had lost almost 9 1/2 bushels per acre, or 542.88 bushels, of soybeans for which the defendant was liable. The defendant claims that if there was a reduction in the yield on the 60-acre tract, it was not because of any Banvel symptoms but was the result of poor irrigation of the field by the plaintiff.
The county court found that there was vapor drift from the defendant's field onto the plaintiff's soybeans but that the plaintiff failed to irrigate at the proper time and the plants which were watered produced beans in substantially a normal manner. The court further found that any attempt to determine what damage to the field was attributable to vapor drift and what damage was attributable to lack of irrigation would be "conjectural, speculative and a 'guesstimate,' " and dismissed the petition.
Upon appeal of a law action which was tried to the court without a jury, this court will not disturb the findings of the lower court unless those findings are clearly wrong. White v. Medico Life Ins. Co., 212 Neb. 901, 327 N.W.2d 606 (1982); Mustion v. Ealy, 201 Neb. 139, 266 N.W.2d 730 (1978). Furthermore, this court will view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party, with all conflicts resolved in its favor. Middagh v. Stanal Sound Ltd., 222 Neb. 54, 382 N.W.2d 303 (1986); White v. Medico Life Ins. Co., supra.
It is the plaintiff's burden to establish the proximate cause of his injury. Schmidt v. Chimney Rock Irrigation Dist., 209 Neb. 1, 305 N.W.2d 888 (1981). While circumstantial evidence may be used to prove causation, the evidence must be sufficient to fairly and reasonably justify the conclusion that the defendant's negligence was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lesiak v. Cent. Valley AG Coop., Inc.
...and exactness, this assigned error has merit.(a) Hahn v. Weber & Sons Co. In making its ruling, the district court relied upon Hahn v. Weber & Sons Co.4 In Hahn, a farmer planted soybeans in two tracts of land lying directly north of, and adjacent to, his neighbor's land. The neighbor spray......
-
BLB Aviation S.C., LLC v. Jet Linx Aviation, LLC
...Neb. 543, 713 N.W.2d 457, 466 (2006). Although proximate causation can be proved by circumstantial evidence, Hahn v. Weber & Sons Co., 223 Neb. 426, 390 N.W.2d 503, 505 (1986), proximate causation is not established by evidence that leaves the factfinder with “[s]peculation and conjecture,”......
-
Bunger v. Ortgiesen, No. A-08-1147 (Neb. App. 5/26/2009)
...crop loss was the Ortgiesens' dikes. It is the plaintiffs burden to establish the proximate cause of his injury. Hahn v. Weber & Sons Co., 223 Neb. 426, 390 N.W.2d 503 (1986). Proving causation involves showing, in this case, that without the dikes, the crop damage would not have occurred. ......
-
McVaney v. Baird, Holm, McEachen, Pedersen, Hamann & Strasheim
...the train. Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, Negligence: Proof § 39 at 242-43 (5th ed. 1984). See, also, Hahn v. Weber & Sons Co., 223 Neb. 426, 390 N.W.2d 503 (1986) (while circumstantial evidence may be used to prove causation, the evidence must be sufficient to fairly and reasonabl......