|
Commentary by Magical Farms on the Jury's verdict |
|||
|
|||
|
On April 3rd, 2007, a Jury for the United States District Court of Ohio returned verdicts against Land O’ Lakes Inc. and Land O’ Lakes Farmland Feed, LLC. Land O’ Lakes had admitted to negligently producing a batch of adulterated feed that caused the death of Magical Farms’ alpacas. Additionally, the Jury found that Magical Farms proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the actions or inactions of Land O’ Lakes caused not only the death of those stipulated alpacas, but also injury to Magical Farms and its surviving alpacas. In comments to the news, legal representation for Land O’ Lakes stated it as a “clean win for the defense” because the award to the victims was small compared to what the victims felt they were owed. It is telling of today’s corporate culture that Land O’ Lakes would consider it a “win” when all they consider is the monetary angle. Through the trial process it was proven that the company violated its own Quality Assurance Program, negligently produced poisoned alpaca feed, and ultimately killed and permanently injured over one-thousand animals on dozens of farms, yet they consider this a “win” because it won’t impact their bottom line. Following the verdict, local news including Cleveland’s Plain Dealer, the Medina Gazette, and broadcast television reported the story. It was reported that Magical Farms had asked for compensation far in excess of the $18,000 that was paid for a particular male. What was not reported was that the $18,000 was paid for Dakotia when he was only one month old. Dakotia went on to a very successful show career of his own and, more importantly, he produced many championship offspring that are recognized as some of the very best in the American Alpaca Industry. His life was cut short by the poisoned feed and Magical Farms will never have the benefit of hundreds of his future cria. To replace Dakotia, one of the premier alpaca herdsires in North America, it will take much more than his $18,000 purchase price. Dakotia was in his prime when he was killed by the poisoned feed, and prior to eating it he would easily have sold for the $325,000 that the Magical Farms expert witness asserted as his market value. It would have, in fact, taken more than that amount to replace him. Consider as an example a racehorse purchased as a young, unproven colt for $18,000. This horse grows up to win the Kentucky Derby and additionally produces many champion offspring for the owning farm. These would be considered top-honors in the racehorse industry, and Dakotia had accomplished top-honors in the Alpaca industry. This horse is then cut down by poisonous feed. To compensate the owner for this loss, would it take $18,000 or would it take the money needed to purchase another Kentucky Derby winner if it were even possible to do so? Would the $18,000 in any way make the farm who lost that animal “whole” again? This example illustrates the difference between market value and purchase price, yet Land O’ Lakes chose a defense strategy of ‘blame the victims’ by asserting that Magical Farms was asking for more than the purchase price in some cases. What has been lost in the reporting of this story is the fact that Land O’ Lakes violated the trust of these farms by making and selling feed that was poisonous to the animals that it was intended for. Their practices were even against their own Quality Assurance program. They have admitted negligence, and they admitted that the feed they produced was poisonous to alpacas. They have been found guilty of product liability, and the Jury found that the plaintiffs proved their case, yet they assert this as a “win”. The fact that the Jury did not understand the values of alpacas in no way exonerates Land O’ Lakes or Land O’ Lakes Farmland Feed from the Jury’s finding that they were responsible for the death of and damage to hundreds of alpacas. In today's climate of corporate responsibility only to their own bottom line, rather than to their customers and to the very lives and livelihoods they touch, their viewing of it as "definitely a clean win for the defense" is very telling indeed. |
