Ark. Code Ann. § 15-32-101 (2020)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Agency — Independent Contractor — Liability of Employer for Trespass to Land, 9 Ark. L. Rev. 163.

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2001 Arkansas General Assembly, Natural Resources, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 513.

Annual Survey of Case Law: Criminal Law, 29 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 849.

Case Notes

Action for Damages.

While failure to procure survey may be considered as bearing upon willfulness or innocence of defendant in action for double damages under § 15-32-301, that failure is not conclusive evidence that defendant cut the timber “knowing” it to be on the land of another. Parker v. Fenter, 216 Ark. 398, 225 S.W.2d 940 (1950).

Instruction that failure to make survey “would be prima facie willful and unlawful and the plaintiff would be entitled to recover three times the value” of the timber under § 18-60-102 was properly refused. Case v. Hunt, 217 Ark. 929, 234 S.W.2d 197 (1950).

There was no merit to the argument that a verdict should have been instructed in appellant's favor for treble damages under § 18-60-102 because of this section, since this section does not deal with the willful cutting of timber or the amount of damages although failure to make survey could have been considered by jury as to willfulness of defendant's act. Freeze v. Hinkle, 229 Ark. 714, 317 S.W.2d 817 (1958).

Trial court did not err in denying appellants a new trial or remittitur regarding a punitive damage award in favor of appellees, as the award was not in excess of federal due process standards, given that (1) appellees suffered economic harm, but the harm was much more than purely economic injury, as appellants cut down approximately 40 percent of appellees' future retirement homesite and the privacy afforded by the trees was very important to appellees, (2) appellants' action forced appellees to give up their plans to retire to the property and ultimately sell it, (3) the tree cutting was intentional and not an isolated incident, (4) the profit appellants received from the sale of their property was a direct result of the tree clearing on appellees' property, (5) the award was not so grossly excessive as to have violated federal due process, (6) each of appellants were on notice of and could have been charged with a Class C felony of criminal mischief under § 5-38-203(b)(1) with, under § 5-4-201(a)(2), a potential fine of $10,000, plus a violation of subdivision (a)(1) of this section, (7) was a misdemeanor, with a potential fine and jail time, and (8) under § 18-60-102(a)(1), appellants had ample notice that their actions could result in a penalty of $25,000 punitive damages. Bronakowski v. Lindhurst, 2009 Ark. App. 513, 324 S.W.3d 719 (2009).

Unofficial Survey.

A conviction was not sustained where the landowner had procured an unofficial survey which was less favorable to its rights than a subsequent official survey, and the defendant company had cut no timber except on its own land. Sawyer & Austin Lumber Co. v. State, 75 Ark. 309, 87 S.W. 431 (1905).

Waiver.

This section is clearly for the protection of owners of property adjacent to timber about to be cut, and can be waived by parties as to their timber, even if applicable to such a situation. Rice v. Moudy, 217 Ark. 816, 233 S.W.2d 378 (1950).

Cited: Freeze v. Hinkle, 229 Ark. 714, 317 S.W.2d 817 (1958); Jester v. State, 367 Ark. 249, 239 S.W.3d 484 (2006).