top of page
  • Writer's pictureMyndee Lee

Recent Court of Appeals Decision Provides Insight into Trespass, Nuisance, and the Right to Farm Act

In the recent decision of Rodney L. Ross, et al. v. Norman Terry Nelson, Stillwater Swine LLC, Husky Hogs, LLC, and NTN, L.P., the Kansas Court of Appeals delved into several key issues relevant to property and farm owners, as well as public entities. The appeal drew amicus briefs from the Kansas Livestock Association and Kansas Farm Bureau. Here, we summarize the main points of the court's ruling and the implications they bear for landowners and businesses in Kansas.


Norman Terry Nelson, a farm owner in rural Norton County, installed approximately two miles of pipeline within the right-of-way adjacent to a public road to facilitate spraying of liquefied hog waste to fertilize his cropland. He undertook the project without securing the consent of the abutting landowners. The pipeline was intended to serve Mr. Nelson’s private farming requirements, not a broader public purpose.

The Court of Appeals noted that dispersal of hog waste by means of an irrigation pivot system situated across the road from the plaintiffs' residence resulted in physical intrusion of waste and offensive odors. The affected landowners filed a lawsuit against Nelson, accusing him of both trespass and nuisance. In a jury trial, Plaintiff prevailed at the District Court level. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Key Takeaways from the Decision

  • Trespass Claims: A claim of trespass arises when someone intentionally enters another's property without the right, lawful authority, or any form of invitation.

  • Public Roadways: Landowners with public roadways on their property can use and control their land without obstructing the public's use of the road. The public, however, only has the right to use the road for transportation.

  • Installing Pipelines: A private entity desiring to install a pipeline in the right-of-way of a public highway must serve a public purpose or seek permission from the appropriate authorities.

  • Trespass Damages: For trespass, a plaintiff is entitled to recover any loss sustained as a consequence of the wrongful act.

  • Nuisance Definition: Nuisance is defined by any act on one's property that adversely impacts another person's use and enjoyment of their property.

  • Kansas Right to Farm Act: This Act was instituted to safeguard agricultural activities from nuisance lawsuits that could otherwise coerce lands out of agricultural uses.

  • Interpretation of 'Laws': Kansas courts interpret the term 'laws' to encompass the Kansas Constitution, statutes, regulations, and case law.

  • Protection under the Right to Farm Act: Agricultural activities are shielded under the Act only if they adhere to federal, state, and local laws.

  • Review of Farm Activities: When assessing agricultural activities under the Right to Farm Act, courts will incorporate all farming practices pertinent to the activities in question.

  • Punitive Damages: The appropriateness of punitive damages will be determined by the appellate court based on the character of the defendant's conduct.

  • Constitutional Implications of Punitive Damages: Punitive damages can potentially infringe upon a party's right to due process.

  • Assessing Excessive Punitive Damages: The court will evaluate the reprehensibility of conduct, the correlation between punitive and actual damages, and equivalent awards for similar conduct to decide if a punitive damage award is excessive.


The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The decision not only provides clarity on the broader legal landscape surrounding property rights and farming but also delves into the nuances of the Kansas Right to Farm Act. The Act, designed to protect farmers from unnecessary legal challenges, mandates that agricultural activities must adhere strictly to existing legal frameworks to be shielded from lawsuits. Here the appellate court noted that “The Kansas Right to Farm Act [only] protects agricultural activities conducted on farmland if those activities are undertaken in conformity with federal, state, and local laws and rules and regulations.” The Court found that the defendant’s activities ran afoul of laws and regulations and thus were not immunized by the Right to Farm Act.

Landowners, farmers, and businesses must remain particularly attentive to these legal subtleties. Always consult with competent legal counsel when in doubt about these matters.

Disclaimer: This blog post is designed for informational use only and does not substitute legal advice from a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction.


bottom of page