Do multiple damages apply to burned trees?

A decades-long case over whether multiple damages are applicable to fire-damaged trees caused by negligence will come down to an interpretation of statutory analysis, lawyers argued Wednesday before the state Supreme Court.

The question in Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. lies in the interpretation of Civil Code 3346, which states victims can seek triple damages for "wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood upon the land of another" or double if the trespass was "casual or involuntary."

According to court documents, appellant Vincent E. Scholes alleged Lambirth Trucking stored combustible material in an area that shares a border with Scholes' property. A fire in May 2007 resulted in more than $204,000 in damage on Scholes' property, court documents show.

Scholes filed suit claiming negligent trespass, intentional trespass and unnatural activity trespass and sought triple damages in a later-amended complaint, court records show. Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co., S241825.

But Lynn A. Garcia, senior counsel for Spinelli, Donald & Nott PC in Sacramento representing Lambirth, shot down the question poised to the court, arguing fire damage should not be considered under 3346 because the statute doesn't mention fire. "The statutes related to fire damage are specific," Garcia said, citing California Health and Safety Code 13007, which holds those setting a fire either willfully or from negligence on another property are liable for damages.

"I don't believe [3346] was intended for anything other than going to cut down someone [else's] trees," Garcia said.

Garcia added the code presented another problem considering the rash of wildfires that have ripped throw the state, a greater value -- in terms of restitution -- on trees over life and property.

"If they intended both of those excesses, then the legislation would have to argue that trees are more important ... than houses, than people," Garcia said.

And if the case is reversed and remanded, Scholes can still seek punitive damages, Garcia said. The 3rd District Court of Appeal affirmed a Colusa County Superior Court dismissal on demurrer in 2017, court records show, holding Scholes' third amended complaint fails "to avoid the statute of limitations bar."

"These could be much higher, but then the appellant's cases wouldn't make sense," Garcia said. "The trees would be worth $3 per tree and the person $1. That cannot be."

Martin N. Buchanan of the Law Office of Martin N. Buchanan APC in San Diego argued the multiplier on 3346 covered "willful damage to trees," which includes fire.