Glavin v. Eckman

Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2008 · Property

71 Mass. App. Ct. 313 (2008)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyWrongful cutting of treesDamagesIndependent contractor liabilityG. L. c. 242 § 7timber trespasstreble damagesrestoration costs

Facts

The Eckmans wanted to improve their ocean view and hired Fragosa and his landscaping company to clear trees blocking it, telling him to open the view "to the max." The Eckmans had previously asked Glavin for permission to cut the trees on his adjoining lot, and Glavin had refused. Fragosa obtained permission from an intervening landowner to cut on her lot but did not determine the property boundaries and then crossed onto Glavin's land, where he cut ten mature oak trees without Glavin's permission. The jury found that both Fragosa and the Eckmans acted wilfully and without good reason to believe they were lawfully authorized.

Issue

Whether, under G. L. c. 242, § 7, the plaintiff could recover restoration-cost damages for the wrongful cutting of trees rather than being limited to timber value or diminution in market value; whether the expert testimony supporting those damages was properly admitted; whether statutory trebling made the damages unreasonable; and whether the Eckmans could be held liable based on Fragosa's conduct.

Rule

General Laws c. 242, § 7 does not limit damages for wrongful tree cutting to timber value or diminution in market value. A plaintiff may recover restoration-cost damages when diminution in market value is not a fair and adequate measure of loss, so long as the proposed restoration and its cost are reasonable and reasonably necessary in light of the injury. Where a landowner directs a contractor to cut the trees at issue, the landowner may be liable for the contractor's acts, and once damages are reasonably assessed, trebling required by § 7 does not make them unreasonable.

🔒

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 Santa Fe, Noah Mercer owns a wooded side lot next to his home and plans to keep it as part of a quiet garden retreat. His neighbor, Elena Soto, deliberately has several mature shade trees on Noah's lot removed to improve the view from her patio. Appraisers testify the lot's resale value did not decrease because buyers in the area prefer more open land.

If Noah sues under the wrongful-tree-cutting statute and seeks restoration-cost damages, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that the statute does not confine damages to timber value or diminution in market value. Restoration-cost damages are permissible where market-value diminution is unavailable or unsatisfactory as a fair measure, so long as the restoration and its cost are reasonable and reasonably necessary. The plaintiff need not prove the impossibility of market-value evidence.