AN ACT to amend and reenact section 32-03-30 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to damages for injuries to timber.
SB 2250 amends North Dakota Century Code section 32-03-30, which sets the measure of damages for wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood on another person’s land or for their removal. The bill separates the statute into two categories of conduct: willful and wanton injuries, which remain subject to treble damages (three times actual detriment), and negligent injuries, which are limited to actual damages only. It also retains existing exceptions for casual and involuntary trespass, mistaken belief of ownership, and wood taken by highway officers for highway purposes.
In practical terms, the bill clarifies and narrows the damages framework for timber trespass cases by distinguishing intentional misconduct from negligence. This affects landowners, timber owners, trespass defendants, insurers, and courts applying damage calculations in property and forestry disputes. The amendment is a targeted change to civil damages law rather than a broad policy overhaul.
The bill amends section 32-03-30 of the North Dakota Century Code to expressly distinguish between willful and wanton timber injuries, which remain subject to treble damages, and negligent timber injuries, which are limited to actual damages. This changes the statutory language governing civil liability for damage to or removal of timber, trees, or underwood on another’s land, while preserving existing exceptions and defenses. The practical effect is to clarify the damages remedy available in timber trespass and property damage cases.
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill, with the Senate passing it 46-0 and the House passing it 84-8. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate significant opposition or amendment controversy. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a straightforward clarification of damages law, with strong bipartisan approval and limited visible resistance.
The main point of legal distinction in the bill is between intentional misconduct and negligence: supporters of the change would likely view this as a clearer and more proportionate damages rule, while any opposition would likely focus on whether negligent timber damage should be treated differently from willful trespass in practice. The retained treble-damages remedy for willful and wanton conduct preserves a strong deterrent for intentional timber trespass, but the bill reduces exposure for negligent conduct to actual damages only. No specific stakeholder objections or committee disputes are documented in the provided materials.