Bonk v. McPherson

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1992 · Corporations

605 A.2d 74 (1992)

Updated August 22, 2026

Corporationstimber trespassagencyindependent contractor liability14 M.R.S.A. § 7552willfulknowingsubjective awareness

Facts

McPherson managed land through Timberlands, and Timberlands had a harvesting agreement with Robinson under which Timberlands designated cutting areas. Lamond, Timberlands' operations forester, suggested Robinson could clear a crossover road at Robinson's own expense, but the parties later misunderstood which old road was to be used. Robinson bulldozed along an old winter road that crossed plaintiffs' lots, clearing about 2000 feet across their land and cutting timber there. Robinson knew of the subdivision but not that plaintiffs had bought the lots, and the lots were not blazed or flagged.

Issue

Whether the evidence supported a finding that Robinson acted willfully or knowingly under 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552 so as to justify treble damages and attorney fees, and whether McPherson or Timberlands could be held liable for Robinson's trespass and timber cutting.

Rule

Under 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552, conduct is 'knowing' only if the defendant is subjectively aware that the cutting is improperly taking place on another's land. 'Willful' conduct under the statute requires conduct displaying an utter and complete indifference to and disregard for the rights of others. An employer of an independent contractor is generally not vicariously liable for the contractor's trespass unless the trespass was authorized as part of the contract, was the natural result of the contracted work, was directed or part of a common purpose, or was ratified.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural western Maine, Logan Pierce was hired to harvest timber from land owned by Pine Hollow Forestry, a fictional company. After discussing the boundary with Pine Hollow's forester and inspecting an old skid trail, Logan mistakenly cut trees on an adjoining unmarked parcel owned by Nina Flores, sincerely believing he remained on Pine Hollow's land.

If Nina sues under a statute that awards treble damages only for timber cutting done "willfully or knowingly," which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. "Knowing" timber trespass requires subjective awareness that the cutting is improperly taking place on another's land. An honest mistake based on a misunderstanding about location, especially on unmarked land, supports trespass liability but not treble damages for knowing conduct. The majority rejected an objective negligence-based standard.