Chapter 634


      Chapter 634


      See also annotations under ORS chapter 573 in permanent edition.


ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: County action to regulate pesticides, (1980) Vol 41, p 21






      Under this section commercial pesticide application must be at least part, no matter how small, of business in which defendant is “engaged” and one engages in business of applying pesticides to land or property of another if part of earnings of one’s business comes from that source. Vierra v. Clackamas County, 309 Or 243, 785 P2d 757 (1990)






      Prohibition against local laws “regarding . . . sale or use” of pesticides is broadly construed to preempt any local regulation not within exceptions provided by ORS 634.063. Advocates for Effective Regulation v. City of Eugene, 160 Or App 292, 981 P2d 368 (1999)






      Exemption under this section of coverage for property “being worked upon” did not include property of contracting farmer sprayed with herbicide by mistake. American States Ins. v. Super Spray Service, 77 Or App 497, 713 P2d 682 (1986)






      Brief delay in notifying adjoining landowner of damage to crops allegedly resulting from adjoining landowner’s spraying of pesticides did not bar injured party from seeking recovery of damages from adjoining landowner. Bella v. Aurora Air, Inc., 279 Or 13, 566 P2d 489 (1977)


      Spraying of pesticide which was isopropyl ester of 2, 4-D constituted “abnormally dangerous” activity, and imposed liability for damage to nearby crops without proof of negligence. Bella v. Aurora Air, Inc., 279 Or 13, 566 P2d 489 (1977)


      Provision of this section requiring notice of actions against pesticide operators within 60 days from date claimant discovered loss occurred was not constitutionally impermissible discrimination against class of which claimant was member. Knight v. Reforestation Services, Inc., 56 Or App 865, 643 P2d 880 (1982), Sup Ct review denied


      Plaintiffs who notified Oregon State University extension service agent of damage from spraying did not substantially comply with requirement to report loss to Department of Agriculture but question whether representations of defendant’s insurance adjuster estop defendant from challenging adequacy of notice presents genuine issue of material fact for jury to decide. Malaer v. Flying Lion, Inc., 65 Or App 154, 670 P2d 214 (1983)


      Defendant public utility was not “pesticide operator” under ORS 634.006 when applying pesticides in maintaining its own facilities, and plaintiff’s failure to comply with report of loss procedures of this section did not bar plaintiff’s claim. Vierra v. Clackamas County, 96 Or App 196, 772 P2d 1346 (1989), aff’d, 309 Or 243, 785 P2d 757 (1990)


      Prohibition against State Department of Agriculture making certain determinations in course of investigation does not prevent introduction of findings as evidence in civil action. Holbrook v. Precision Helicopters, Inc., 162 Or App 538, 986 P2d 646 (1999), Sup Ct review denied






      Aerial spraying of pesticide 2, 4-D in vicinity of broad leaf crops is activity which is “abnormally dangerous,” so as to impose liability for damages without proof of negligence. Bella v. Aurora Air, Inc., 279 Or 13, 566 P2d 489 (1977)


      Prohibition against intentionally applying or using any pesticide inconsistent with its labeling is violated by intentional use that is improper, whether or not intentionally violative of labeling. Henderson v. Dept. of Agriculture, 128 Or App 169, 875 P2d 487 (1994), Sup Ct review denied


      634.410 to 634.425


ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Registration of pesticide Thiram for use on forest tree seedlings, (1977) Vol 38, p 1256