Opinion ID: 1318519
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Penal Nature of AS 09.45.730

Text: MEA claims that common law standards governing punitive damages should apply to AS 09.45.730. Such standards require a showing of malice before a court may award punitive damages. See e.g., Alaska Northern Development, Inc. v. Alaska Pipeline Service Co., 666 P.2d 33, 41 (Alaska 1983). MEA relies on the section in Andersen in which we declined to allow prejudgment interest on the treble damages portion of the award because those damages were punitive. Andersen, 625 P.2d at 289. It reasons that because we characterized the treble damage provision as penal, common law punitive damages principles apply. Therefore, MEA argues that since Weissler did not show actual malice, punitive damages were improper. Here, however, the court did not make a discretionary award of general punitive damages. Rather, it found that MEA trespassed and that the cutting of the trees bordered on recklessness. Section 09.45.730 explicitly sets forth the rule and the exceptions for treble damages awards. It provides that: A person who cuts down ... a tree ... on the land of another ..., without lawful authority, is liable to the owner of that land ... for treble the amount of damages. ... (Emphasis added). The Oregon Supreme Court specifically addressed the scope of liability and punitive damages in 1889. That court construed the Oregon statutes [3] upon which AS 09.45.730 was modelled. [4] The court stated: The appellants' counsel insists that this statute is penal in its character, and does not apply to an unintentional trespass... . If said section 338 of the [Civil] Code stood alone, the court would be called upon to construe it, and it might in that case adopt the construction contended for by the counsel; but we are spared that labor, as said section 339 . .. points out the circumstances under which no more than single damages can be recovered. The legislature, by the latter section, has given a construction to the former one,  has prescribed the cases in which such trespasser shall be liable for single damages only,  and leaves him in all other cases liable to treble damages, as prescribed in the former section ... . Lowenburg v. Rosenthal, 22 P. 601, 604 (Or. 1889) (emphasis added). The Oregon construction is sensible. MEA must, therefore, show that it falls within the exceptions to the treble damages provision.