Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay, so we're back on S-forty five Committee of Practice, and after taking a little break and reviewing the language, which we appreciate their working on for us. We met and reviewed it, and we've got a couple of suggestions to, I want to say, improve it, from our perspective, improve it, and maybe put it under the line. Yeah, I've got plenty of time.
[Unidentified Legal Witness/Counsel]: On number two, C2, the one change that we proposed is instead of sole cause, proximate cause, which is 12 loan standard in law. It is admittedly harder to show sole cause than proximate cause. But otherwise having that objective evidence makes some sense particularly if you're looking for an effect on health. So that one relatively straightforward. We have a little more substantial suggestion on number three. It's just that having to show noxious or significant interference based upon objective documented medical scientific evidence seems to be a very high bar. And what we would propose is the following. We would strike the based upon objective doctrine for the rest of that sentence. And we would propose a reasonable person would find that the agricultural activity was approximate cause of the noxious and significant interference with the use and enjoyment of the It still has some subjectivity in it, the reasonable person standards, think Rob can tell me, a well understood standard in FARC. And it makes it less subjective. I'll turn it over to you if you want
[Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Read that again.
[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah, sure, go ahead.
[Unidentified Legal Witness/Counsel]: So a reasonable person would find that the agricultural activity was approximate cause of the noxious and significant interference with the use of enjoyment of the neighboring property. And part of it is, we don't have a lot of case law that's applied this, but from my understanding the post about case, Judge Teachout, it wasn't clear that they were applying a reasonable person standard to determine that something was noxious. And I think that whether that would have changed the outcome, who knows, but anything more on that?
[Robert Plunkett (Member)]: No, I mean, think the reasonable person standard is a known standard that courts have experienced implementing. And it raises the standard above a subjective determination. Maybe based in part upon evidence, but it's gonna have to be more objectively sufficient to meet the reasonable person standard.
[Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: I guess I would ask what you generally think about. I can't say that I'm all unhappy about it, people are honest. I don't know why we don't want to offer those protections to our agricultural community. I
[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: don't
[Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: know why we should have a bar lower than what it should be presently, but if my two fellow senators are willing to go along with it, then so be it. But I just you know, we agreed with everything that was put forth. We came up with another, what I thought was a good compromise. And once again, there's more leverage being placed on somebody going after agricultural specialists as far as the farmer being able prove that level of, I'm not the legalese here. Senator Plunkett is, so I will yield to him on this particular one here, but I just don't know why we keep going down this road.
[Unidentified Legal Witness/Counsel]: Yeah. I suppose I to ask actually, guess I'd ask if if we could take a brief recess.
[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: It's