Washington lawmakers expected wind-exposed trees to fall and hurt people, but decided the environmental benefits were worth the risk, Assistant Attorney General Joshua Schaer told the state Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Because the Legislature gave landowners and loggers immunity, a man grievously injured by a falling Douglas fir left at the edge of a clear-cut on Department of Natural Resources land can’t sue, Schaer argued.

“They (trees) are designed to fall down to benefit aquatic species, streams, land. And when a tree falls and causes injury, harsh and unfortunate as it may be, the Legislature decided there should be immunity,” he said.

“We know it’s going to happen,” Schaer said. “We don’t know it’s going to happen to a particular person at a particular time, but it’s going to happen at some point.” 

It happened to Snohomish County Public Utility District employee Barry Chrisman in 2018. A tree was uprooted in a windstorm and crashed onto a PUD vehicle as he drove past a sliver of trees left standing by the road.

Chrisman was in the hospital for 117 days. He and the PUD sued DNR, timber buyer Sierra Pacific Industries and logging contractor Precision Forestry.

At issue is whether their suit can go to trial, or whether the law granting immunity to forestland owners for damage caused by trees that fall after timber harvests applies to this case.

The Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Forest Protection Association, Washington Farm Forestry Association and others filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the court to grant landowners and loggers broad immunity.

Chrisman’s attorney, Raymond Dearie Jr., said DNR, Sierra Pacific and Precision Forestry shouldn’t escape responsibility for cutting down the trees that shielded from the wind other trees that were close to the road and could fall across it.

He asked justices to watch a video of Chrisman’s crushed Ford Explorer made by a logger who can be heard cursing the harvest plan.

“He screams it. He uses some expletives to enforce the notion of how stupid this practice was,” Dearie said.

Snohomish PUD attorney Kit Roth argued Sierra Pacific and Precision Forestry didn’t have to cut as many trees as they did.

“They had the discretion, the ability, and the obligation and responsibility to not cut the wind buffer,” he said.

Attorneys for Sierra Pacific and Precision Forestry told the justices they took orders from DNR. Schaer confirmed the two companies were bound to DNR’s harvest plan.

“The contractor was required to follow the permit as DNR set it out,” he said.

A wind buffer wasn’t required, Schaer said. Besides, wind buffers aren’t intended to prevent trees from falling on people, he said.

“Wind buffers function to protect (riparian management zone) trees, not third parties, like the plaintiffs in this case,” Schaer said.

It doesn’t matter why trees come down or whether they are inside or outside riparian management zones, he said. “We are expecting trees to fall down because of responsible conservation practices.”