Food & Agriculture Quarterly January 2019 | Page 9

FOOD & AGRICULTURE QUARTERLY | JANUARY 2019
North Carolina’s Smithfield lawsuits:
Could Ohio farmers face similar
results?
ELLEN ESSMAN
Over the last several months, three nuisance cases
have been decided against Smithfield Foods in
federal court in North Carolina. The juries in the
cases have found Smithfield’s large farms, with
thousands of hogs, and the odor, traffic, and flies
that come along with them, to be a nuisance to
neighboring landowners. Smithfield has been
ordered to pay hefty damages to the neighbors,
and more cases against the company remain to be
decided. Given the outcomes of the cases that have
been decided thus far, farmers and landowners in
Ohio might be wondering how Ohio law compares
to North Carolina law as pertains to agricultural
nuisances.
Ohio’s Right-to-Farm law
Many states, including both Ohio and North
Carolina, have “right-to-farm” legislation, which in
part is meant to protect agriculture from nuisance
lawsuits such as those filed against Smithfield. While
nearly every state has a right-to-farm statute, they do
differ in language and how they go about protecting
agriculture.
Ohio farmers have right-to-farm protection in
two parts of the Revised Code. ORC Chapter 929
establishes “agricultural districts.” Generally, in
order to place land in an agricultural district, the
owner of the land must file an application with the
county auditor. Certain requirements must be met
in order for an application to be accepted. Slightly
different rules apply if the land in question is within
a municipal corporation or is being annexed by a
municipality. If the application is accepted, the land
is placed in an agricultural district for five years. The
owner may submit a renewal application after that
time is up.
Being part of an agricultural district in Ohio can
help farmers and landowners to defend against civil
lawsuits. ORC 929.04 reads:
In a civil action for nuisances involving agricultural
activities, it is a complete defense if:
• The agricultural activities were conducted
within an agricultural district
• Agricultural activities were established within
the agricultural district prior to the plaintiff’s
activities or interest on which the action is
based
• The plaintiff was not involved in agricultural
production
• The agricultural activities were not in conflict
with federal, state, and local laws and rules
relating to the alleged nuisance or were
conducted in accordance with generally
accepted agriculture practices
The ORC’s chapter on nuisances provides additional
protection for those “engaged in agriculture-related
activities.” Under ORC 3767.13, people who are
practicing agricultural activities “outside a municipal
corporation, in accordance with generally accepted
PAGE 9