Opinion ID: 1318519
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trespass Without Lawful Authority

Text: MEA asserts that it did not trespass because it had Weissler's permission. It contends that the easement gave it authority to trim beyond the four foot path. The easement provided MEA with authority: To inspect and make such repairs, changes, alterations, improvements, removals from, substitutions and additions to its facilities as the Association may from time to time deem advisable, including, by way of example and not by way of limitation, the right to increase or decrease the number of conduits, wires, cables, hand holes, manholes, connection boxes, transformers and transformer enclosures; to cut, trim and control the growth by chemical means, machinery or otherwise of trees and shrubbery located within ____ feet of the center line of said line or system, or that may interfere with or threaten to endanger the operation and maintenance of said line or system (including any control of the growth of other vegetation in the right of way which may incidentally and necessarily result from the means of control employed)... . Weissler's consent to enter and cut trees extended only to the four foot easement. The trial court correctly concluded that MEA exceeded the scope of the consent by clearing beyond the four foot easement. According to the Restatement of Torts, One whose presence on land is pursuant to a consent which is restricted to conduct of a certain sort, is a trespasser if he intentionally conducts himself in a different manner, as where one licensed to go on another's land and cut and remove trees not less than six inches in diameter cuts trees four and five inches in diameter. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 168 comment d (1965) (emphasis added). [5] The Reporter's Notes to Section 169 [6] mention the well-recognized rule that one who has a private easement of way becomes a trespasser when he goes beyond its boundaries. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 169 reporter's notes (1966). A recent Washington case applying its timber trespass statute dealt with a situation analogous to the case at bar. That case discussed whether the holder of a utility easement may be held liable for treble damages when the easement holder deviates from the location of that easement without first obtaining permission of the landowner and damages trees and shrubs. Tatum v. R & R Cable, 30 Wash. App. 580, 636 P.2d 508, 510 (1981). The defendant in that case contended it substantially complied with the easement because it chose a less expansive route and destroyed fewer trees than it would have on the easement. Id., 636 P.2d at 510-11. The trial court, however, found that the path chosen by the [defendant] substantially deviate[d] from the easement, both in terms of its location and its width. Id. at 511. The trial court imposed treble damages upon the defendant and the appellate court upheld the verdict as supported by substantial evidence. Id. The appellate court noted that the defendant had neither obtained permission to vary from the easement nor made an effort to ascertain its location. Id. at 511. These two factors supported the verdict. MEA claims that the scope of consent went beyond a mere four foot easement. However, the trial court concluded that while the written easement did not have four feet filled in, Mr. Weissler clearly had an agreement with MEA that it was supposed to be four feet, and that when MEA cut further than four feet it was a trespass or a taking that wasn't done with consent. It is undisputed that MEA's employees did not seek permission from either MEA or Weissler to enlarge the cutting area. In reviewing the trial court's findings of fact, we may only reverse if such findings are clearly erroneous. Martens v. Metzgar, 591 P.2d 541, 544 (Alaska 1979). The trial court's findings here are not clearly erroneous. Mr. Weissler testified that he received assurances that the clearing would only be four feet. Buzby, MEA's employee, testified that the work order indicated a four foot clearing. Marilyn McRae Purcell, original owner of the land in question, testified that she accompanied Weissler to MEA after the clearing took place and spoke to an MEA employee. That employee told Weissler that the clearing was only to be four feet, two feet on either side of a center line. Against this evidence MEA can only point to Buzby's belief that they were doing the Weisslers a favor and MEA's belief that the easement authorized cutting such trees as MEA deemed advisable. MEA thus exceeded the scope of the easement Weissler granted. We therefore affirm the trial court's finding that MEA trespassed without lawful authority.