CIV § 3346

Treble Damages for Cut Down Trees: CIV § 3346

CIV § 3346 sets tree damage remedies at three times actual detriment, or twice for casual trespass. Trespass actions must begin within five years.

Official text CIV § 3346 — California
  • (a) For wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood upon the land of another, or removal thereof, the measure of damages is three times such sum as would compensate for the actual detriment, except that where the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant in any action brought under this section had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was his own or the land of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, the measure of damages shall be twice the sum as would compensate for the actual detriment, and excepting further that where the wood was taken by the authority of highway officers for the purpose of repairing a public highway or bridge upon the land or adjoining it, in which case judgment shall only be given in a sum equal to the actual detriment.
  • (b) The measure of damages to be assessed against a defendant for any trespass committed while acting in reliance upon a survey of boundary lines which improperly fixes the location of a boundary line, shall be the actual detriment incurred if both of the following conditions exist:
  • (1) The trespass was committed by a defendant who either himself procured, or whose principal, lessor, or immediate predecessor in title procured the survey to be made; and (2) The survey was made by a person licensed under the laws of this State to practice land surveying.
  • (c) Any action for the damages specified by subdivisions (a) and (b) of this section must be commenced within five years from the date of the trespass.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 3346 is why a dispute about a felled tree is rarely a dispute about the price of a tree. For wrongful injuries to timber, trees or underwood upon the land of another, or their removal, the measure of damages is three times the sum that would compensate for the actual detriment. The multiplier is built into the measure of damages, not offered as a discretionary penalty, and it applies to injury as well as removal — topping, ringbarking or root severance is within the section as much as felling.

The section then steps the multiplier down in defined cases. Where the trespass was casual or involuntary, or the defendant had probable cause to believe the land was his own or that of the person in whose service or by whose direction he acted, the measure is twice the actual detriment rather than three times. Where wood was taken by highway officers to repair a public highway or bridge on or adjoining the land, judgment is for the actual detriment only. Subdivision (b) adds a further reduction to actual detriment where the trespass was committed in reliance on a survey by a licensed California land surveyor that wrongly fixed the boundary, and the survey was procured by the defendant, the defendant's principal, lessor or immediate predecessor in title.

Subdivision (c) sets the limitation period: an action for these damages must be commenced within five years from the date of the trespass. What the section does not supply is the base figure the multiplier applies to. "Actual detriment" for a mature tree is contested territory — replacement cost, diminution in the value of the land, and restoration cost can produce very different numbers — and that valuation, along with whether the trespass was casual, is the part worth taking to a lawyer.

When it applies

  • A neighbour or their contractor cuts down a tree standing on your land
  • A tree crew hired to trim overhanging branches removes the whole tree
  • Roots severed on your side of the fence and the tree later dies
  • A developer clears vegetation over the boundary line
  • The cutter says a surveyor told them the boundary was elsewhere
  • A tree on the boundary itself is felled by one side without the other's agreement

What this section does not say

  • It does not decide who owns the tree. Ownership, and what happens where a trunk straddles a boundary, are questions of property law that this section assumes have been answered.
  • It does not give you three times what the tree is worth to you. The multiplier applies to the "actual detriment", which is a legal measure argued on valuation evidence, not a sentimental figure.
  • It does not deal with overhanging branches or invading roots. The self-help right to cut back what crosses the boundary comes from other law, and is precisely the thing that turns into a § 3346 claim when it goes too far.
  • Treble is not automatic. A casual or involuntary trespass, or probable cause to believe the land was the defendant's own, reduces the measure to double, and a qualifying licensed survey reduces it to actual detriment.
  • It does not stop the clock. Subdivision (c) requires the action to be commenced within five years of the trespass.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A neighbour hires a crew to clear a boundary, and a mature tree standing on the other side of the line is felled without anyone asking.

How the wording applies

Section 3346 sets treble the actual detriment for wrongful injury to trees on another's land, reduced to double for a casual or involuntary trespass or where there was probable cause to believe the land was the defendant's own. The fact this hinges on is what the neighbour believed about the boundary and why: honest reliance on a long-standing fence line is a different case from clearing after being shown a survey.

How the parties settled it

The neighbour pays an agreed sum for the loss of the tree based on an arborist's valuation and plants a semi-mature replacement, and the two of them mark the boundary line by agreement.

Illustrative example

A tree crew engaged to cut back branches overhanging a fence takes the whole tree out instead, saying it was easier that way.

How the wording applies

The self-help right to cut back what crosses a boundary comes from other law, and section 3346 is what applies once it goes further than that. It turns on the instruction and on what was actually removed: cutting to the boundary line is lawful, and taking out the trunk is an injury to a tree on the neighbour's land whoever gave the order.

How the parties settled it

The crew's insurer and the neighbour jointly fund a replacement planting and pay an agreed sum for the loss of screening, with instructions for any future work put in writing.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 1991 to 2017.

Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co., 10 Cal. App. 5th 590 (2017)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether the five-year statute of limitations under Civil Code section 3346(c) applies to claims for damage to trees caused by a negligently set fire.

What it held

The court held that Civil Code section 3346 does not apply to damage to property resulting from fires negligently set, so the five-year statute of limitations under that section does not apply to such claims.

In the court's words
However, we previously held that Civil Code section 3346, which authorizes double damages for wrongful injuries to timber, trees or under-wood, where the trespass causing the injuries was casual or involuntary, did not apply to damage to property resulting from fires negligently set.

Fulle v. Kanani, 7 Cal. App. 5th 1305 (2017)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether annoyance and discomfort damages resulting from injuries to trees may be doubled or trebled under Civil Code section 3346.

What it held

Annoyance and discomfort damages are subject to the statutory damage multiplier for trespass to timber under Civil Code section 3346.

In the court's words
We conclude that annoyance and discomfort damages are subject to the statutory damage multiplier for trespass to timber, and accordingly reverse and remand the matter to the trial court.

Salazar v. Matejcek, 245 Cal. App. 4th 634 (2016)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether the trial court properly awarded treble damages under Civil Code section 3346 for willful and malicious trespass to trees.

What it held

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in trebling the damage award because the evidence supported a finding that defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the rights of plaintiffs, satisfying the willful and malicious standard under Civil Code section 3346.

In the court's words
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in trebling the damage award.

Kallis v. Sones, 208 Cal. App. 4th 1274 (2012)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether the trial court erred by doubling the full amount of damages, including installation and aftercare costs, under Civil Code section 3346, subdivision (a).

What it held

The trial court did not err by doubling the full amount of damages because the amount required to compensate for the actual detriment necessarily includes installation and aftercare costs.

In the court's words
The court therefore did not err by doubling the full amount.

Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc., 179 Cal. App. 4th 442 (2009)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether Civil Code section 3346 applies to tree damage caused by a negligently spread fire.

What it held

Yes, tree damage caused by a negligently spread fire is wrongful injury to trees caused by a trespass, and the doubling of damages under Civil Code section 3346 is mandatory, notwithstanding the general fire damage provision in Health and Safety Code section 13007.

In the court's words
tree damage caused by a negligently spread fire is wrongful injury to trees caused by a trespass subject to mandatory doubling pursuant to Civil Code section 3346, notwithstanding the general provision governing fire damage in Health and Safety Code section 13007

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

Related sections

CIV § 3333 Full Compensation for All Detriment Caused | CIV § 3333 CIV § 3479 Nuisance defined: harm to health or property | CIV § 3479 CIV § 1708 No contract needed: CIV § 1708 duty to not injure

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CIV § 3346 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages