Representative Image (AI-generated)
A surveyor testified that Bosma had hired him in 2011 to prepare a topographical map for work near the property line. The surveyor also testified that Bosma hired him again in 2018 to document clearing that had already taken place. Because he did not repeat an out-of-court statement by the surveyor, the testimony was not hearsay. Because they act through a business, the appeals court explained that a person is not automatically protected from liability for their own actions merely.
The appeals court noted that the trial judge had stopped Butori when he began repeating what the surveyor had told him. The appeals court said the jury could reasonably infer that Bosma personally caused the clearing and acted intentionally. But his later testimony concerned his own belief about the boundary, based partly on his observations and the meeting. They argued that it could lead jurors to assume they had admitted fault. The trial court admitted the agreement for a limited purpose: showing that Bosma knew the boundary was disputed, which could help jurors decide whether the later clearing was intentional or accidental. The appeals court found no error in that decision. The defendants’ final argument was that there was insufficient evidence to hold Bosma personally responsible, rather than the company that owned the neighbouring property. The evidence had to allow the jury to find that Bosma personally directed or caused the clearing. During an on-site discussion, the surveyor warned him to stay within the right of way, but described Bosma as dismissive of his understanding of the boundary.
The defendants also challenged evidence of an earlier timber trespass settlement between the same parties involving the general area near the disputed boundary. The judge removed the amount paid under the earlier settlement and instructed jurors not to treat the agreement as proof of liability. Based on an earlier survey, the witness located that clearing on Butori’s property.
In an opinion dated April 8, 2026, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Butori v. Bosma, case number A181266. The decision , available on Justia, rejected challenges to the evidence and to Henry Bosma’s personal liability. The court found sufficient evidence that he personally directed or caused the clearing. On appeal, Bosma and Bosma Enterprises raised three challenges. They first argued that the trial court had improperly allowed Butori to testify about his understanding of the boundary after meeting the county surveyor.