Jacobs Farms v. Western Farm Services

What an ordeal! After two long weeks, this difficult trial is finally over. Now that we the jury have presented our verdict, it is OK for us to talk about the case. This a huge relief to me, because I have a lot to say. It all started last Monday, when I woke up early (yes, to me, 8:00 AM is early!) to show up at the courthouse for jury selection. After meeting in a trailer beside the courthouse, we were led into district number 5, which is a large cube shaped room. There is old hand carved wooden decoration on everything, including the judge's desk, the jury box and chairs, the desks for council, etc. On the wall opposite the jury box there are portraits of once-presiding judges. All but one were men, all but one were colorless photographs. History. The courtroom smelled of history.

The judge asked us if anyone had emergencies that would excuse them from service. A few people made legitimate excuses, including broken bones, but most were very usual daily chores that a babysitter or substitute could handle. After all the excuses had been made, the judge called 18 people's names. 12 people sat up into the jury box, 6 sat in a row of chairs in front of the jury box. One by one, the judge asked us all to state our name, occupation, significant other, and personal interest. I was impressed that the judge had something interesting to say to each and every person. Sometimes he would ask a question about their field of work, or joke about the school they went to, or something. It struck me that he was at least a little bit knowledgeable about seemingly everything. He then went around asking the 12 sitting in the jury box if they could listen to all the evidence with an open mind and come to a conclusion without bias. A few people were excused having answered no to this question. I found this absurd. If a person admits they have bias, doesn't that mean they can compensate for it? It seems like a question of willingness to participate rather than a question of bias. In any case, the morons having been weeded out (or so I thought), three of the "backup" jurors were excused, along with the rest of the group, who had waited patiently in the audience. They were done with their duties for the time being. They had NO idea how lucky they were!

The judge then explained to us that this would be a long and complex trial, involving chemistry, physics, and statistics. This grabbed my attention, because the only thing I love more than chemistry, physics, or statistics is ALL THREE OF THEM AT ONCE. *snort* The judge then explained to us some of the ground rules, how the court room works, like objections and evidence. Then, he instructed council - the plaintiff and the defendant - to give their opening statements.

The plaintiff was Jacobs Farms. They grow organic herbs on Wilder Ranch in Santa Cruz County. They accused Western Farm Services (WFS) of chemical trespass, negligence, and nuisance. They claimed that the organophosphates (OP) pesticides Chlorpyrifos (CPF), Dimetholate, and Diazinon had contaminated their crops in 2006 and 2007. The strange thing is, these materials didn't get sprayed on Jacobs Farms property by mistake, or on purpose, or at even at all. Nearly every drop of pesticide landed on the target (neighboring) crops, right where it was supposed to go. However, the plaintiff argued that scientific evidence would show these OPs volatilize (evaporate) and can move off-target in the wind, dust, and fog.

The defense argued that they had obeyed the law and the done everything regulatory officers had asked of them, so they are not responsible for any damages. They also claimed that Jacobs Farms was negligent in choosing the location of their farm, because both neighbors (and many others in the area) grow conventional brussels sprouts. The pesticides "registered for" (allowed to be sprayed on) brussels sprouts contain the OPs that contaminated the crops. Also, it was argued that, as the applicator, and not the land owner, WFS is not responsible for "acts of god" like wind, dust, and fog.

Right away, I could see this was going to be a hard case. Many worlds were colliding. There is the world of politics, where lobbyists register labels that enforce startlingly minimal safety precautions. There is the world of farming, which is just plain hard, and full of risk. There is WFS, a subsidiary of Agrium, a 10+ billion dollar cap corporation.

Unfortunately, we were not able to keep our notes. My memory of who testified when is fuzzy.

Sears

Barns

Zannetti

Deliberation days 1, 2