Opinion ID: 1721411
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Viability of Plaintiffs' Claim Under Section 598.4.

Text: At the heart of this controversy lies the question whether plaintiffs' petition states a claim as defined in chapter 669, the Iowa Tort Claims Act. Pertinent to this suit, the Act permits private parties to recover money damages for the negligent or wrongful acts of state employees where the state, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant for such damage.... Iowa Code § 669.2(3)(a). The Act creates no new causes of action. Engstrom v. State, 461 N.W.2d 309, 314 (Iowa 1990). It merely recognizes and provides a remedy for a cause of action already existing which would have otherwise been without remedy because of common law immunity. Id. Before plaintiffs can recover in tort against the State or any other defendant, they must show a duty owed them by the wrongdoer and a violation of that duty. Id. at 315. Here plaintiffs claim the State's duty to them arises under section 658.4. Arrogating to themselves the ownership of trees on public lands, they argue the statute permits them recovery against a perpetratorin this case, the Statewho willfully injures any timber on their land. See Iowa Code § 658.4. Plaintiffs' argument, though unquestionably sincere, cannot withstand close scrutiny. Section 658.4, contained in a chapter entitled Waste and Trespass, has throughout its long history been interpreted to furnish relief to property owners for damage by trespassers. See Parker v. Parker, 102 Iowa 500, 505, 71 N.W. 421, 422 (1897) (penal statutes prohibiting unauthorized timbering were enacted because at common law mere trespass was not indictable); Johnson v. Tyler, 277 N.W.2d 617, 618 (Iowa 1979) (common-law action for trespass and punitive damages would be alternative to action brought by property owners under section 658.4, paying treble damages); Bangert v. Osceola County, 456 N.W.2d 183, 191 (Iowa 1990) (affirming landowners' trespass action against county for wrongful removal of trees). The State concedes that these plaintiffs, as taxpaying citizens, might conceivably claim a proprietary interest in the enjoyment of state park trees. Acknowledging that interest, however, does not thereby divest the State of its ownership of the parks, or the trees, in question. See Iowa Code § 461A.10 (vesting title to all lands purchased, condemned, or donated for park purposes in the State). The DNR is, by statute, delegated the duty to manage state parks. Iowa Code § 455A.2. Its power is exercised in accordance with policies established by a natural resources commission. See generally Iowa Code § 455A.5. Consistent with this delegation of authority, DNR employees are specifically exempted from the law barring the removal, destruction, or injury of trees or other plant life on public lands. Iowa Code § 461A.41. Clearly these statutes contradict the novel interpretation of section 658.4 advanced by plaintiffs on this appeal. Plaintiffs' counsel conceded in oral argument that even if plaintiffs enjoyed trees grown on a neighbor's land, plaintiffs would have no right to seek compensation for their neighbor's willful destruction of their own trees. No recognized duty exists to support such a cause of action. So it is with the facts before us. Because the plaintiffs could not recover against a private landowner for the conduct complained of here, plaintiffs can sustain no cognizable claim against the State under section 669.2(3)(a) of the Tort Claims Act. Thus the district court correctly determined as a matter of law that the State's ownership and management authority over publicly owned forests precludes a citizen's suit for money damages against DNR employees carrying out their statutory mandate on state-owned lands. AFFIRMED.