2017 ORS 105.815¹
When double damages are awarded for trespass
  • exception

(1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, if, upon the trial of an action included in ORS 105.810 (Treble damages for injury to or removal of produce, trees or shrubs), it appears that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was the land of the defendant or the land of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, or that the tree or timber was taken from uninclosed woodland for the purpose of repairing any public highway or bridge upon the land or adjoining it, judgment shall be given for double damages.

(2) A judgment for the costs of litigation and reforestation as provided in ORS 105.810 (Treble damages for injury to or removal of produce, trees or shrubs) shall be in addition to and not in lieu of a judgment for damages under this section.

(3) This section does not apply to a contract logger if the contract logger is subject only to actual damages under ORS 105.810 (Treble damages for injury to or removal of produce, trees or shrubs) (4). [Amended by 1995 c.721 §2; 1999 c.544 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Under this sec­tion a per­son who has a real prop­erty interest which the law recognizes as entitled to protec­tion is an owner of land. Pedro v. January, 261 Or 582, 494 P2d 868 (1972)

Plaintiff with a future contingent interest in land is allowed recovery under this sec­tion. Pedro v. January, 261 Or 582, 494 P2d 868 (1972)

Use of the word “trespass” does not require a possessory interest in one who seeks recovery under this sec­tion. Pedro v. January, 261 Or 582, 494 P2d 868 (1972)

This sec­tion does not apply to injuries to fruit crops and trees caused by fumes emitted from defendant’s aluminum plant. Meyer v. Harvey Alum., 263 Or 487, 501 P2d 795 (1972)

Where defendant’s title to disputed parcel of prop­erty had matured by adverse pos­ses­sion, doctrine of rela­tion-back applied to prevent recovery under this sec­tion. Breuer v. Covert, 47 Or App 225, 614 P2d 1169 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Stipulated value of timber itself is proper base for computing double damages under this sec­tion and cost of logging should have not been included. Sinsel v. Henderson, 62 Or App 150, 660 P2d 1072 (1983)

Where defendant log hauler did not enter, hire others to enter or act in concert with those entering plaintiff’s land, defendant was not liable for timber trespass. Bergman v. Holden, 118 Or App 530, 848 P2d 141 (1993), as modified by 122 Or App 257, 857 P2d 217 (1993)

“Casual or involuntary” trespass does not require showing of negligence. Wyatt v. Sweitz, 146 Or App 723, 934 P2d 544 (1997)

Law Review Cita­tions

36 WLR 401 (2000)

Chapter 105

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Private process server in a forcible entry and detainer ac­tion, (1975) Vol 37, p 869

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 105—Property Rights, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors105.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 105, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano105.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.