Beeman v. Marling

I agree with the majority to the extent that 1.C. 25-86.5-1-17(a) (repealed by PL. 220-1993, SEC.10) imposes strict liability and therefore the Timber Company's belief and the facts surrounding the transaction are wholly irrelevant to the issue before the court. The statute is clear and unambiguous and it does not provide for a defense of mistake of fact nor does it require an intent element on the part of the person who cuts the timber.

However, it is on the issue of treble damages that I diverge with the majority. I would reverse the trial court on the issue of treble damages because I…