Fifteen Waimea, Kauai, residents who say they can’t enjoy their homes because of red dust from fields operated by DuPont Pioneer recently won their legal battle in federal court against the seed company, but whether the remaining 185 plaintiffs will be awarded damages still hasn’t been determined.

The recent unanimous jury verdict in support of the Waimea residents is believed to be the first verdict involving the Hawaii Right to Farm Act, the residents’ attorney said.

After a four-week trial and less than 12 hours of deliberations, the jury decided on May 8 that DuPont Pioneer failed to follow generally accepted agricultural and management practices at test fields near the Waimea Research Center from Dec. 13, 2009, to Dec. 31, 2011.

"This verdict will help define the standard for generally accepted practices in Hawaii in the future and Waimea plaintiffs hope this result will help protect other communities from similar harms," attorney Patrick Kyle Smith, who represented the Waimea residents, said in an email.

The verdict applies only to 10 homes, with a total of $507,090 awarded to all but one household for property damage and loss of use and enjoyment of property. The households were considered "bellwethers," or a representative sample in the case.

The trial was to be a model to resolving claims by all remaining Waimea residents named in two lawsuits against DuPont Pioneer, formerly Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.

The lawsuits, filed in state court on Kauai in 2011 and 2012, involve approximately 200 residents in 150 households. In the suits, residents say dust and pesticides from the seed company’s fields caused property damage and prevented them from enjoying their homes.

The seed company succeeded in having both cases moved to federal court.

The cases were consolidated because of the significant amount of time it would have taken to try each separately. Smith said the court selected 10 homes — 16 plaintiffs — for the initial trial.

Attorneys for the residents and seed company are expected to discuss how to resolve claims for the remaining residents.

"If that is unsuccessful, then additional trials will be scheduled and appeals will likely go forward," said Smith.

The federal jury verdict could also be appealed by DuPont Pioneer, although spokeswoman Laurie Yoshida said no decision has been made.

In closing arguments, company attorney Clement Glynn told the jury the Hawaii Right to Farm Act gives farmers the basic right to farm without fear of being sued by neighbors and discussed the importance of agriculture for the state’s economy.

Enacted in 2001, the law states: "No court, official, public servant or public employee shall declare any farming operation a nuisance for any reason if the farming operation has been conducted in a manner consistent with generally accepted agricultural and management practices."

David Callies, a professor at the University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law, said the act is not a safe haven for farmers who do not adhere to generally accepted agricultural practices.

"It doesn’t relieve the farmer from trespassing or acting in a nuisancelike manner," Callies said.

The verdict serves as a model for residents who face similar nuisance problems regarding dust, he added.

"It gives a good case to cite for a good course of action," he said.

David Forman, director of the environmental law program at the law school, said he is not aware of any other verdict in a case where the defendant asserted defenses under Hawaii’s Right to Farm Act.

"If the decisions stands following any potential appeal by Pioneer, the verdict will serve as a powerful tool promoting settlement of similar future claims as an alternative to incurring the significant cost of litigating those issues again," said Forman in an email. "Although the decision does not constitute binding precedent in such future cases, it does provide a compelling and persuasive authority that other courts may choose to rely upon."

U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayashi ruled before the start of the trial that residents could introduce evidence concerning pesticides only to support claims of property damage, loss of use and enjoyment of property and emotional stress.

Glynn told the jury in his opening statement that no personal injury claims were filed by any of the residents.

Pesticides were not mentioned during the trial. Both parties focused on red dust.

"If claims of personal injury exist, then they would have to be brought separately," Smith said.

The lawsuits against DuPont Pioneer by Waimea residents were filed before the Kauai County Council passed legislation in 2013 to regulate pesticide use by seed companies.

A federal judge struck down the law last year and ruled it invalid. Two separate appeals filed by nonprofit organizations and the county on the judge’s decision are pending at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.