Wash. Rev. Code » Title 64 · Chapter 64.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 64.12.040 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If upon trial of such action it shall appear that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which such trespass was committed was his or her own, or that of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, or that such tree or timber was taken from uninclosed [unenclosed] woodlands, for the purpose of repairing any public highway or bridge upon the land or adjoining it, judgment shall only be given for single damages.
[ 2012 c 117 s 193; Code 1881 s 603; 1877 p 125 s 608; 1869 p 143 s 557; RRS s 940.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1963–2024 · leading case: Jongeward v. BNSF Ry. Co., 278 P.3d 157 (Wash. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jongeward v. BNSF Ry. Co., 278 P.3d 157 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 26× “[3] RCW 64.12.040 provides, "If upon trial of such action it shall appear that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which such trespass was committed was his or her own, .”
Broughton Lumber Co. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 278 P.3d 173 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 23× “[4] RCW 64.12.040 provides, "If upon trial of such action it shall appear that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which such trespass was committed was his or her own, .”
Olivia & William Herring Et Ux v. Jose & Blanca Pelayo, Et Ux, 397 P.3d 125 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “030, (2) the trial court erred by concluding that there were no mitigating circumstances under RCW 64.12.040, and (3) the trial court erred by awarding damages and attorney fees to the Herrings.”
Happy Bunch, LLC v. Grandview North, LLC, 173 P.3d 959 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “030 unless Grandview proved one of the mitigating factors listed in RCW 64.12.040. Therefore, Happy Bunch asserts, the trial court erred by not awarding treble damages.”
Happy Bunch, LLC v. Grandview North, LLC, 142 Wash. App. 81 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “030 provides: Whenever any person shall cut down, girdle or otherwise injure, or carry off any tree, timber or shrub on the land of another person,... without lawful authority,... if judgment be given for the plaintiff, it shall be given for treble the amount of damages claimed…”
Maier v. Giske, 154 Wash. App. 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “RCW 64.12.040. ¶30 Here, the trial court awarded $14,130 for injuries to five different types of plants: $4,590 for nine pyramidal arborvitae, $2,400 for the Pacific wax myrtle, $900 for the camellia, $5,400 for the shore pine, and $840 for an osmarea.”
Porter v. Kirkendoll, 449 P.3d 627 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 3× “" RCW 64.12.040. This shows that the legislature made timber trespass a strict liability tort (despite its nominal similarity to trespass, which has historically been considered an intentional tort).”
Trotzer v. Vig, 203 P.3d 1056 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “[10] Trotzer contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's Findings of Fact 7 and 8, specifically the finding that he told Vig the fence was the property line; and (2) the findings of fact do not support the trial court's Conclusion of Law 5—that…”
Smith v. Shiflett, 403 P.2d 364 (Wash. 1965). · cites it 10× “(The loggers were primarily liable, and Deer Park was to have subrogation against them, if it paid the part of the judgment for which is was liable.”
Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Brommers, 570 P.2d 1035 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 3× “Bottiger had authority to authorize the logging of all merchantable timber and thus were not entitled to rely on RCW 64.12.040, 3 which mandates single damages only when certain mitigating circumstances are found to exist by the trier of fact.”
Trotzer v. Vig, 203 P.3d 1056 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “But RCW 64.12.040 provides relief from treble damages, thus allowing the trial court to award only single damages, where it appears “that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which such trespass was…”
Hill v. Cox, 110 Wash. App. 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “RCW 64.12.040. Once a trespass is established, the burden shifts to the defendant to show it was not willful or reckless, but rather was casual or involuntary, or done with probable cause to believe the land was his own.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.