Law by Lawsuit

If only Pythagoras had a good lawyer, he might have survived to inflict a few more theorems upon high school mathematics students. According to legend, the sixth century B.C. philosopher met his end at the edge of a field of fava beans. An angry mob from the city of Crotonia pursued Pythagoras to the edge of the field. But rather than attempt an escape through the field, Pythagoras chose death at the hands of the mob.
As is still quite common among people of Mediterranean decent, Pythagoras suffered from favism, which left its sufferers deathly sensitive to the pollen of fava beans. Had he attempted to cross the field, he would have died of an allergic reaction. He concluded that whatever vengeance the lynch mob had in mind for him was preferable to perishing from favism.
But, perhaps that field never would have been there in the first place if Pythagoras had access to a modern predatory litigation. Today, we have evolved an attitude, or at least a legal theory, that a sensitive person is entitled to have the environment adjusted to his or her specific wishes. If Pythagoras didn’t like fava bean pollen, he could simply sue the farmer for permitting fava pollen to drift on the winds and into his lungs.
Requiring the rest of the world to accommodate your wishes has become standard operating procedure. If you don’t like the aroma of cigarettes, then smokers are required to steer a wide berth around you. Even perfumes are being banished in some cities.
And, in northern Idaho and Eastern Washington, those who don’t like smoke from grass field burning are using the courts to harass farmers out of business. The problem is that burning fields is legal and is closely regulated by each state. And burning grass fields is every bit as vital to the production of grass seed as pollen is to the cultivation of fava beans.
It seems only simple common sense that those who obey the law deserve its protection. But as it is now, a farmer who strictly adheres to field burning rules is still vulnerable to punishment if his smoke irritates somebody downwind. An asthma attack on a smoky day is payday for the lawyers. Lawsuits are replacing legislative votes as the mechanism for writing laws.
Abandoned by their insurance companies, farmers have asked the Idaho legislature to give them protection from such predatory lawsuits as long as they adhere to the law. That such protection is necessary reveals a fundamental flaw that demands correction. And yet, when farmers ask for fair treatment under the law they find themselves labeled as bullies or big-spending special interests.
But grass growers are not alone. Others who have suffered this sort of legal harassment include firearms manufacturers, who are expected to pay for crimes committed with their products. We even have lawsuits in which the obese attempt to collect damages from McDonald’s for selling them french fries. The last time I checked, french fries were legal. Gun ownership is guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Smoke from burning grass is like pollen. It does not confine itself to property lines. Some people are sensitive to smoke. Some people are injured by smoke. And one can die from an allergic reaction to pollen. Smoke and pollen drift wherever the winds take them. And, pollen drifts without waiting for the permission of an ecology department. Pollen is worse because the plants would never respect a “no pollination day.” For a grass seed farmer, burning his fields is every bit as essential to the production of grass as pollen is to apple growers.
There are all sorts of heath hazards associated with agriculture that could become potential targets. A common allergen in this area is mold spores from pea vines, as is simple dust from harvesting or plowing. Would we sue an apiculturist if one of his bees stung someone who was allergic to the venom?
If there is any flaw in the laws now being considered for the protection of grass seed growers, it is that they are too narrow in their focus. Nobody who obeys laws should have to worry about a lawyer seeking to write his own legislation in a courtroom. It hardly seems democratic when the people’s elected representatives can be overruled by a single person filing a lawsuit.