Register free!
Search
 
     

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-10-2007, 01:15 PM
HOOLIE's Avatar
HOOLIE HOOLIE is offline
LawnSite Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 3,986
Interesting Court Case...

This probably belongs more in the Pesticides forum but more people come here and this could pertain to anyone, so...

Happened to catch the People's Court this morning, there was a case of a guy suing a landscaper for making his dog sick thru the weed killer he applied. The facts of the case were....the guy's dog had wandered into his neighbor's yard (his sister's actually) and thru contact with the chemicals had gotten very sick. The landscaper was not licensed and he had not posted any warning signs after the application. He had sprayed the weeds as a favor to a good customer. Supposed he told her he wasn't licensed but said he would do it one time for her and went and bought some name-brand spray (they didn't say what is was)

The plaintiff was armed with the EPA regs for New York, which said warning signs must accompany any "commercial application"

However...the judge examined the laws and "commercial application" meant pesticides applied to commericial properties, rather than chemicals applied for profit. Residentials were exempt. She then noted the county laws required the homeowner, not the applicator, must post warning signs along property lines, unless the treated area exceeded 100 sqft. He had only spot-sprayed a small area so he was OK.

So the lawnboy won...interesting that his being unlicensed was not relevant to the case.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-10-2007, 02:54 PM
TurfProSTL's Avatar
TurfProSTL TurfProSTL is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The 19th hole
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOLIE View Post
This probably belongs more in the Pesticides forum but more people come here and this could pertain to anyone, so...

Happened to catch the People's Court this morning, there was a case of a guy suing a landscaper for making his dog sick thru the weed killer he applied. The facts of the case were....the guy's dog had wandered into his neighbor's yard (his sister's actually) and thru contact with the chemicals had gotten very sick. The landscaper was not licensed and he had not posted any warning signs after the application. He had sprayed the weeds as a favor to a good customer. Supposed he told her he wasn't licensed but said he would do it one time for her and went and bought some name-brand spray (they didn't say what is was)

The plaintiff was armed with the EPA regs for New York, which said warning signs must accompany any "commercial application"

However...the judge examined the laws and "commercial application" meant pesticides applied to commericial properties, rather than chemicals applied for profit. Residentials were exempt. She then noted the county laws required the homeowner, not the applicator, must post warning signs along property lines, unless the treated area exceeded 100 sqft. He had only spot-sprayed a small area so he was OK.

So the lawnboy won...interesting that his being unlicensed was not relevant to the case.
Saw this myself. I thought the landscaper was going to incur the wrath of that fox-of-a-judge.....

But it went like you said - the landscaper got a big break. Neighbor should have complained to his state Pesticide Bureau, and he might have won this case.

Oh, and the herbicide was SpeedZone.
__________________
Its a Cinderella story outta nowhere. Former greenskeeper and now about to become the Masters champion.....
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-10-2007, 03:01 PM
Duekster Duekster is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 7,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOLIE View Post
This probably belongs more in the Pesticides forum but more people come here and this could pertain to anyone, so...

Happened to catch the People's Court this morning, there was a case of a guy suing a landscaper for making his dog sick thru the weed killer he applied. The facts of the case were....the guy's dog had wandered into his neighbor's yard (his sister's actually) and thru contact with the chemicals had gotten very sick. The landscaper was not licensed and he had not posted any warning signs after the application. He had sprayed the weeds as a favor to a good customer. Supposed he told her he wasn't licensed but said he would do it one time for her and went and bought some name-brand spray (they didn't say what is was)

The plaintiff was armed with the EPA regs for New York, which said warning signs must accompany any "commercial application"

However...the judge examined the laws and "commercial application" meant pesticides applied to commericial properties, rather than chemicals applied for profit. Residentials were exempt. She then noted the county laws required the homeowner, not the applicator, must post warning signs along property lines, unless the treated area exceeded 100 sqft. He had only spot-sprayed a small area so he was OK.

So the lawnboy won...interesting that his being unlicensed was not relevant to the case.

Judge was wrong on the FIFRA Laws.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-10-2007, 03:11 PM
HOOLIE's Avatar
HOOLIE HOOLIE is offline
LawnSite Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 3,986
I hadn't seen that show in...forever...the judge reminds me of the mom from Married With Children...

I hope at least the weeds died...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-10-2007, 03:29 PM
Runner's Avatar
Runner Runner is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Flint, Michigan
Posts: 13,492
Yep...The judge (and thus the judgement) was wrong in this case. What threw me, was her definition of "commercial lawn application". They interpreted this as "non-residential", when in fact, commercial means just that...for hire - whether it is residential or commercial. She had no idea about the ol' customer bought the stuff, either. The "landscaper" was saying how this stuff can be bought over the shelf - "anyone can go to the store and buy it." The fact of the matter is, ANYone can but ANY of the pesticides that commercial applicators use - with the exception of RUP's, of course. Now, as far as the flags,...she was probably right on about the "homeowner not having to post it", but the fact was,..it was not the homeowner doing the ap..
__________________
Joe

Thank you, Dad - for always being the dad that you were. You truly are my hero. You always were.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-10-2007, 04:26 PM
jrc lawncare's Avatar
jrc lawncare jrc lawncare is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: upstate ny
Posts: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOLIE View Post
This probably belongs more in the Pesticides forum but more people come here and this could pertain to anyone, so...

Happened to catch the People's Court this morning, there was a case of a guy suing a landscaper for making his dog sick thru the weed killer he applied. The facts of the case were....the guy's dog had wandered into his neighbor's yard (his sister's actually) and thru contact with the chemicals had gotten very sick. The landscaper was not licensed and he had not posted any warning signs after the application. He had sprayed the weeds as a favor to a good customer. Supposed he told her he wasn't licensed but said he would do it one time for her and went and bought some name-brand spray (they didn't say what is was)

The plaintiff was armed with the EPA regs for New York, which said warning signs must accompany any "commercial application"

However...the judge examined the laws and "commercial application" meant pesticides applied to commericial properties, rather than chemicals applied for profit. Residentials were exempt. She then noted the county laws required the homeowner, not the applicator, must post warning signs along property lines, unless the treated area exceeded 100 sqft. He had only spot-sprayed a small area so he was OK.

So the lawnboy won...interesting that his being unlicensed was not relevant to the case.
Judge is dead wrong. Commercial application are made on residential & commercial props. If I had sprayed prop in this case, and flagged property correctly, I have no control over the fact that a dog wanders into a treated area.
__________________
Owner..AGLS...certified applicator
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-10-2007, 04:40 PM
Tharrell's Avatar
Tharrell Tharrell is offline
LawnSite Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Airy, NC aka Mayberry
Posts: 2,965
I think she was wrong too. Those shows are entertainment to me, I really can't take them seriously.
__________________
Remembering all my departed friends.



NObama '08
NoMoreObama '12
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-10-2007, 05:49 PM
No Lawncares No Lawncares is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 78
Shes a judge and you are lawn guys trying to say she is wrong, Im going with the judge.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-10-2007, 05:55 PM
Duekster Duekster is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 7,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Lawncares View Post
Shes a judge and you are lawn guys trying to say she is wrong, Im going with the judge.
Go for it, but the FIFRA Laws are very clear as are the Local Texas Department of AG Laws.


Quote:
(2) Private applicator
The term “private applicator” means a certified applicator who uses or supervises the use of any pesticide which is classified for restricted use for purposes of producing any agricultural commodity on property owned or rented by the applicator or the applicator’s employer or (if applied without compensation other than trading of personal services between producers of agricultural commodities) on the property of another person.

(3) Commercial applicator
The term “commercial applicator” means an applicator (whether or not the applicator is a private applicator with respect to some uses) who uses or supervises the use of any pesticide which is classified for restricted use for any purpose or on any property other than as provided by paragraph (2).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/...6----000-.html


The only catch was he said he was not paid to do it. So unless you guys want to do it for free you need a license.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-10-2007, 06:13 PM
HOOLIE's Avatar
HOOLIE HOOLIE is offline
LawnSite Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 3,986
Well regardless it was cool to see the lawnboy win...the plaintiff should keep his dogs on his own property in the first place.

Whatever law the judge was reading, she had it right in front of her. Perhaps she interpreted it incorrectly??
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:14 AM.

Page generated in 0.11378 seconds with 7 queries