Mississippi § 69-21-123 - Repealed.

§ 69-21-123. Repealed.

Repealed by operation of law, effective June 30, 2008, by former Section 69-21-127. § 69-21-123 . [Codes, 1942, § 5011-13; Laws, 1966, ch. 239, § 13; Laws, 1972, ch. 369, § 12; Laws, 1980, ch. 482, § 8; reenacted, Laws, 1983, ch. 304, § 12; reenacted, Laws, 1991, ch. 391, § 12; Laws, 1991, ch. 530, § 14; reenacted without change, Laws, 1996, ch. 447, § 12; reenacted without change, Laws, 1997, ch. 468, § 12; reenacted without change, Laws, 1999, ch. 387, § 12; reenacted without change, Laws, 2006, ch. 494, § 12, eff from and after passage (approved Mar. 27, 2006.)] Editor’s Notes — Laws, 1999, ch. 387, § 14 provides: “SECTION 14. Sections 69-21-101 through 69-21-125, Mississippi Code of 1972, which create the State Board of Agricultural Aviation and prescribe its duties and powers, shall stand repealed as of December 31, 2004.” JUDICIAL DECISIONS 1. In general. Under substantial compliance rule, failure by injured person to give written notice to state Department of Agriculture, landowner or lessee of land, and applicator, will not be considered fatally defective to bringing negligence action for spray-drift from aerial application, so long as state Department of Agriculture is notified in writing in accordance with notice of claim limitations period for bringing action. Evans v. Boyle Flying Serv., 680 So. 2d 821, 1996 Miss. LEXIS 494 (Miss. 1996). Notice pursuant to statute of limitations for bringing action for damages for negligent aerial application must be in writing where given to state Department of Agriculture, and should be in writing to others, but may be given orally to others. Evans v. Boyle Flying Serv., 680 So. 2d 821, 1996 Miss. LEXIS 494 (Miss. 1996). Notice of claim limitation period for bringing negligence action arising from spray-drift from aerial application begins to run on date claimant knew or reasonably should have known of damage from spray; in event spray-drift damage is alleged to growing crops, notice must be given within 60 days form date claimant know or reasonably should have known of damage and prior to harvesting of 25% of allegedly damaged crop, whichever occurs first. Evans v. Boyle Flying Serv., 680 So. 2d 821, 1996 Miss. LEXIS 494 (Miss. 1996). Notice of claim limitation period for bringing negligence action arising from spray-drift from aerial application began to run during time when property owners discovered that their trees were dying. Evans v. Boyle Flying Serv., 680 So. 2d 821, 1996 Miss. LEXIS 494 (Miss. 1996). RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Liability for injury caused by spraying or dusting of crops. 37 A.L.R.3d 833. Federal preemption of state common-law products liability claims pertaining to pesticides. 101 A.L.R. Fed. 887. Am. Jur. 3 Am. Jur. 2d, Agriculture § 47. 9 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d, Crop Duster’s Failure to Exercise Care in Spraying Crops, §§ 7 et seq. (proof of crop duster’s liability for negligence in spraying operations). Law Reviews. Ogletree, A primer concerning industrial timber litigation with emphasis upon Mississippi law. 59 Miss. L. J. 387, Fall 1989.