Widespread pesticide drift issues ensued from the advent of dicamba-tolerant crop systems in the late 2010s, resulting in millions of acres of damaged farmland. Farmers who suffered drift-related losses in crop yield had to seek recovery in state courts. However, state courts varied in their approaches to drift lawsuits and remedies, if awarded, could include damage awards or injunctions. To demonstrate the need for a more transparent judicial process, this paper identifies three torts commonly advanced as causes of actions in drift cases and creates theoretic-game models to evaluate each tort's impact on farmers' decision-making and economic outcomes.