The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D operated L & R Spraying Service as a partnership. P owns and farms land, and so does Fitzgerald (P), which P custom-farmed. P seeded approximately 970 acres of both farms with Klages barley. P asked D to spray those crops, and they did. D used an 'off-label' mixture not authorized for use on spring barley. In May 1987, Ps noticed that their barley crop was damaged. On March 29, 1989, P sued D, alleging negligence and claiming damage to 953 acres. The court found that D's spraying caused the crop damage, and that Fitzgerald (P) was damaged in the amount of $47,737.28, based on calculations done by her expert, Neal Fehringer. The basis for that amount was the court's finding that she should have been able to sell all of her barley as malt barley at $3.69/bushel and would have harvested at least 13,194 more bushels. The court found that P had to rent equipment for $3,000 to screen out 'thins' to ensure the maximum amount of Fitzgerald's (P) barley was suited for malt, and added that amount to her damage award. Fehringer also testified, and the court found that P sustained damages in the total amount of $55,073.02. The court also awarded Ps prejudgment interest to accrue from September 15, 1989. D appealed. D claims that damages must be calculated from the fair market value at the time of harvest, which was $2.40, and not from D waiting and holding off until well after harvest to get a better price. P claimed it was common practice to hold their product off the market for some time to get better pricing.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.