Opinion ID: 1164389
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: treble damages under as 09.45.730

Text: AS 09.45.730 provides that a person who cuts down ... timber... without lawful authority, is liable to the owner ... for treble the amount of damages... . Wrangell contends that treble damages are appropriate where the damages awarded are based on the lumber or timber value of the trees but are clearly inappropriate where damages are assessed on some other basis. We reject this contention. We adopt the reasoning of the court in Schankin v. Buskirk, 354 Mich. 490, 93 N.W.2d 293, 295-96 (1958), which rejected a similar argument: As to the damages involved, it is settled that the damages that are to be trebled under the statute represent not merely the value of the timber cut but damages to the freehold as well. Generally speaking, damages in trespass to land are measured by the difference between the value of the land before the harm and the value after the harm, but there is no fixed, inflexible rule for determining, with mathematical certainty, what sum shall compensate for the invasion of the interests of the owner. Whatever approach is most appropriate to compensate him for his loss in the particular case should be adopted. Thus, the damages awarded in [our previous decision] reflected, in part, the value of the timber taken and, in part, the cost of restoring the land to a condition of usefulness  by filling up stump holes and cleaning up the toppings and other debris left behind by the trespassers. (citations omitted).