Opinion ID: 1443762
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: common law recovery

Text: [¶ 11] On cross-appeal, Murray contends that the court erred in awarding Fuschetti common law damages for the same tree damage. We agree. [¶ 12] We have stated that the plain language of 14 M.R.S.[ ] § 7552 indicates the Legislature's intention to occupy the field entirely . . . . Stockly, 2005 ME 47, ¶ 10, 870 A.2d at 1211. Therefore, the statute replaces the common law with respect to damage to trees from a trespass. [¶ 13] There are no cases in which we have upheld the recovery of both statutory and common law trespass damages for the same tree damage. When we have upheld the award of both section 7552 and common law trespass damages, the common law damages have been awarded to redress injuries other than injury to trees. For example, in Morissette, we did not disturb the award of both common law trespass and statutory damages, but the common law trespass damages were awarded to restore the lawn and the section 7552 damages were for the destruction of a tree. 2001 ME 152, ¶¶ 7, 16, 782 A.2d at 766, 768. [7] [¶ 14] We conclude that Fuschetti was not entitled to recover both statutory and common law damages for the same loss. Therefore, we vacate that portion of the judgment awarding her common law trespass damages.