Case Name: Don L. CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MIDSTATE AERIAL APPLICATORS CORP., and Agsco Chemicals, Inc., domestic corporations, Defendants and Respondents
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1969-03-26
Citations: 166 N.W.2d 386
Docket Number: Civ. No. 8444
Parties: Don L. CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MIDSTATE AERIAL APPLICATORS CORP., and Agsco Chemicals, Inc., domestic corporations, Defendants and Respondents.
Judges: PAULSON and KNUDSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 166
Pages: 386–389

Head Matter:
Don L. CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MIDSTATE AERIAL APPLICATORS CORP., and Agsco Chemicals, Inc., domestic corporations, Defendants and Respondents.
Civ. No. 8444.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
March 26, 1969.
Rehearing Denied April 10, 1969.
Vogel, Bair & Graff, Mandan, for plaintiff and appellant.
Pearce, Engebretson, Anderson & Schmidt, Bismarck, for defendant and respondent Agsco Chemicals, Inc.
Donald H. Crothers, Fargo, for defendant and respondent Midstate Aerial Applicators Corp.

Opinion:
TEIGEN, Chief Justice.
The plaintiff has appealed from a summary judgment of dismissal of his complaint.
The motion for summary judgment alleges the complaint does not state a claim. The motion is premised on the ground that certain statutory conditions precedent to the institution of the action have not been complied with.
The plaintiff, by his complaint, claims damages for injury to and loss of his crops resulting from the use of a chemical spray labeled MX, manufactured and sold by Agsco Chemicals, Inc., to Midstate Aerial Applicators Corp., who aerially applied the chemical to the plaintiff's crops under an employment contract with the plaintiff for the purpose of killing broad leaf weeds.
The statutory conditions precedent, which it is alleged were not complied with, are set forth in Sections 28-01-40 and 28-01-41, N.D.C.C. These sections provide as follows:
"No civil action shall be commenced arising out of the use or application of any herbicide, insecticide, fungicide or agricultural chemical by aircraft, unless the claimant has filed a verified report of the loss with the state of North Dakota aeronautics commission, together with proof of service of such verified report of loss upon the operator or applicator allegedly responsible and the person for whom such work was done within a period of sixty days from the occurrence of such loss or within sixty days from the date the claimant knew such loss had occurred, provided, however, if the damage is alleged to have been occasioned to growing crops, the report shall be filed prior to the time when fifty per cent of the crop was harvested." [Emphasis added.]
Section 28-01-40 N.D.C.C.
"The verified report of the loss as set forth in section 28-01-^40 shall include, so far as known to the claimant the following: name and address of claimant, type, kind, and location of property allegedly injured or damaged, date the alleged injury or damage occurred, name of operator or applicator allegedly responsible for such loss or damage, and the name of the ozvner or occupant of the property for zvhom such operator or applicator was rendering labor or services." [Emphasis added.]
Section 28-01-41, N.D.C.C.
The proofs submitted in support of and in resistance to the motion for summary judgment establish that the plaintiff has not served upon the defendant Agsco or filed with the North Dakota Aeronautics Commission the verified report of loss described in the above statute. For this reason the trial court granted the summary judgment of dismissal. The defendant Midstate also moved for summary judgment of dismissal, which motion was denied. No appeal has been taken from this order as it was not considered appealable.
The parties and the court in the summary judgment proceedings considered the statutes quoted above as applicable to this case. We do not agree.
The plaintiff in this case is the person for whom the work was done. The first section quoted above does not impose conditions precedent upon the person for whom the work was done. It imposes conditions precedent upon a "claimant" who is one other than the person for whom the work was done. The plaintiff in this case does not fit that category. The intent of the statute is made clear by the statutory language employed. The verified report of loss must be served by the claimant upon "the operator or applicator allegedly responsible and the person for whom such work, was done. " [Emphasis added.] The second section quoted above helps to define the "claimant." It requires that the verified report shall include "so far as known to the claimant" the name and address of the operator or applicator allegedly responsible and the name of the "owner or occupant of the property for whom such operator or applicator was rendering labor or services." The statutes envision a "claimant" as one other than the "person for whom such work was done" or other than the "owner or occupant of the property for whom such operator or applicator was rendering labor or services."
The legislative direction is clear and unambiguous. It was the obvious intent of the legislature to provide conditions precedent before an action may be commenced by a "claimant" against the operator or applicator and the owner or occupant for whom the work was done by the operator or applicator for damages caused by his negligence in the application of chemicals by aircraft, or against either of them.
Chemicals applied by aircraft are discharged or released from the aircraft in the form of dust or a liquid spray while the aircraft is in flight. Wind and other atmospheric conditions affect the direction of its fall to the earth below. The aircraft travels at a high speed and the dust or spray cutoff controls are manually controlled by the pilot of the aircraft. Errors may occur in judgment or as a result of negligence which may cause damage to others outside the perimeter of the area to which it was intended to apply the chemical. Other negligent acts may also cause damage to others than the person for whom the work of applying the chemicals is being done. We find the statute is directed to such persons. They are the claimants referred to in the statute. The damage for which claim is made may be caused by drift of the chemical onto the land of a neighbor, or the failure to cut off the spray or dust when making turns over a neighbor's land, or as a result of other negligent acts arising out of the use or application of the chemicals described in the statute by aircraft to some person other than the person for whom the work is being done. The plaintiff is not such a person. The statute does not create a condition precedent to the commencement, of the instant action. The plaintiff is not a "claimant" within the purview of these statutes. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment of dismissal.
For the reasons aforesaid, the summary judgment is reversed.
PAULSON and KNUDSON, JJ., concur.