Opinion ID: 2074592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reduction of Damages for Good Cause[3]

Text: [¶ 17] It was undisputed that Jean LeClerc was responsible for the cutting and removal of trees from the disputed property. Because the jury found that LeClerc had not acted intentionally or knowingly, he must have acted negligently or without fault, which normally would entitle the Dionnes to double damages under 14 M.R.S. § 7552(4)(A). LeClerc asked the court to reduce the damages pursuant to the last sentence of section 7552(3)(B), which provides, The court may reduce the damages awarded for good cause shown when the cutting of trees was done negligently or without fault. This provision became effective September 18, 1999, P.L. 1999, ch. 339, after the trees were cut in this case, and the court declined to apply it retroactively. [¶ 18] LeClerc argues that the good cause provision is procedural, not substantive, in nature, and therefore may be applied retroactively. The trial court rejected this argument, and we agree with the court. In Howe v. Natale, 451 A.2d 1198, 1201 (Me.1982), the plaintiffs sought to increase their recovery by retroactive application of an amendment to section 7552 that increased the plural damages available from double to treble. We held that the amendment should not have been applied retroactively because [t]he law of damages is a matter of substance which is fixed when the cause of action accrues. Id.; see also Raymond v. Lyden, 1999 ME 59, ¶ 1 n. 2, 728 A.2d 124, 125 (stating that trespass provision of 14 M.R.S.A. § 7551-B (Supp.1998) should not have been applied retroactively). In this case, LeClerc seeks to reduce his liability by retroactive application of an amendment to section 7552 that may decrease the damages available. We see no principled distinction between the two cases. The 1999 amendment is as substantive as the one at issue in Howe, and the court did not err in failing to apply it retroactively.