OPINION
PER CURIAM.
I. INTRODUCTION
This appeal arises out of a timber trespass action. Paul Harder brought a lawsuit seeking restoration damages against Joel and Darlene Wiersum after the Wiersums cleared trees from Harder's property without his permission. | The Wiersums filed a third-party complaint against Harder's sister, Lisa Wietfeld. They sought to apportion fault to Wietfeld, claiming that she had negligently misrepresented that she owned the property where the trees were cut when she gave them permission to remove trees from her property. The superior court granted Wiet-feld's summary judgment motion and dismissed the claim against her. The remaining parties proceeded to trial and a jury awarded Harder $161,000 in compensatory restoration damages. The jury also found that Harder was entitled to statutory treble damages. The superior court denied the Wiersums' motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
[560]*560The Wiersums appeal, arguing that the superior court erred by dismissing their claim against Wietfeld and by denying their motions for directed verdicts and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Because we conclude that Wietfeld owed no duty to Harder, we affirm the superior court's grant of summary judgment as to Wietfeld. We also affirm the superior court's denial of the Wiersums' motions for a directed verdict because Harder presented sufficient evidence for the issue of restoration costs to be submitted to the jury. We conclude, however, that the superior court erred by denying the Wiersums' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the jury's award of restoration damages was objectively unreasonable. We therefore vacate the damages award and order a new trial on damages.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
Paul Harder bought land in the Monashka area of Kodiak in 1976. He built a small home on the property in 1981 and lived there for several years. In 1982 he subdivided the property into three lots: Lots 1A, 1B, and 1C.
In 1998 Harder sold Lot 1B, where his house stood, to his sister, Lisa Wietfeld. Over the next 15 years, Harder lived in Washington and Hawaii with his family. He periodically returned to Kodiak to fish and visit the Monashka property. He testified that he intended to build a home on Lot 1A in the future, as this was his favorite area of the property.
In 2002 the Wiersums bought property adjacent to Lot 1A (Harder's property), which overlooks Lot 1B (Wietfeld's property). The Wiersums could see Wietfeld's cabin at the bottom of the hill below their property, and they assumed that Wietfeld owned all of the land between her house and their property.
In 2005 Darlene Wiersum called Wietfeld while Wietfeld was at work to ask if the Wiersums could cut down some trees on Wietfeld's property that might "come down with the wind" and harm their property. Wietfeld gave them permission because she thought the removal of some trees would "let a little more light in." When Wietfeld returned home from work later that day, she discovered that the entire hillside had been cleared. Upset by the number of trees that had been cut, Wietfeld immediately called the Wiersums and left a message instructing them not to cut any more trees. Harder next visited the property in 2007 and discovered the clear-cut hillside. He asked Wiet-feld who had cut the trees and informed her that the trees were on his property, not hers.
B. Proceedings
In March 2008 Harder brought a timber trespass claim against the Wiersums seeking restoration costs and treble damages under AS 09.45.730.1Harder asserted in his complaint that he had intended to let the land "remain in its natural state and planned to build a small cabin in the old growth forest for his retirement." In their answer, the Wiersums asserted that if they were liable for damages, fault must be apportioned to Wietfeld under AS 09.17.080.2 They also filed a third-party complaint against Wiet-feld, alleging that she had negligently misrepresented to the Wiersums that she owned the property belonging to her brother and again claiming that in the event Harder was entitled to damages, fault must be apportioned between themselves and Wietfeld under AS 09.17.080.
Harder filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to establish that he was entitled to treble damages under AS 09.45.7830. The Wiersums opposed the motion, arguing that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding application of one [561]*561of the statutory exceptions to treble damages: whether the Wiersums reasonably believed that they had permission from the property owner to cut the trees.3 Wietfeld filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence to support a claim of liability against her.
The superior court denied Harder's motion, ruling that whether the Wiersums' actions were reasonable was a question of fact for the jury to decide. The superior court granted Wietfeld's motion, ruling that the material facts regarding Wietfeld's involvement were undisputed and did not support a claim against her. Accordingly, the superior court dismissed the claim against Wietfeld.
Harder and the Wiersums proceeded to trial in May 2010. Harder testified about his reasons for wanting to restore the land to its original condition. As a boy, he had hiked across the property with his friends while hunting and fishing. He lived in the house that he had built on Lot 1B for several years. Even after he moved out of Alaska, he continued to fish in Kodiak in the summers and periodically spent time at the Monashka property with his family. He testified that he held on to the Monashka property for 34 years and that he intended to build a house and live on Lot 1A once his son graduated from college.
Harder testified that he had "always wanted to keep [Lot] 1A" because it was "a very beautiful piece of property." The property was also very private, because the tall trees screened the neighboring houses from view. But after the trees were cut down, the property "looked totally different": It was "full of salmonberry bushes, ... whereas it was just like thick moss before," he had not heard any ravens there since the trees were cut, and he had lost his privacy. Harder concluded: "It's been ... altered forever, and all I'm asking is that it's repaired.... I mean, I don't want money. I want my trees back."
Harder presented expert testimony on the cost of restoring the land. A forester had identified approximately 70 stumps on Harder's property. An arborist testified that it would cost $161,000 to transplant 70 Sitka spruce trees that were nine to ten feet tall and an additional $162,000 to replace the forest ground cover. The arborist testified that it was necessary to purchase the trees from a nursery in British Columbia because it was only possible to get trees up to seven feet tall in Alaska. A horticulturist testified to a different method of transplanting larger trees and estimated it would cost $620,537 to restore Harder's property. He agreed that it would be "much easier" and cheaper to transplant smaller trees. Harder conceded on cross-examination that his property was valued at about $27,500 for tax purposes and that it had not suffered any diminution in market value as a result of the lost trees.
At the conclusion of Harder's evidence, the Wiersums filed a motion for a directed verdict on the issue of restoration costs, arguing that Harder had failed to provide evidence of diminution in the value of his property or any damages due to the loss of the wood from the cut trees. They contended that the restoration appraisal figures offered by Harder's experts were not "reasonably proportionate to a zero diminution in market value" as required by this court's decision in Osborne v. Hurst.4 The superior court denied the motion, finding that Harder had presented sufficient evidence to allow the jury to consider the claim.
The Wiersums testified and explained that when they obtained Wietfeld's permission to cut the trees on her property, they believed that she owned the land where the trees were, although they admitted that they did not check public records to verify ownership. The Wiersums then presented evidence from an expert in real estate sales and transactions who testified that in 2005 Harder's property had a listing value of $30,000-$40,000, and by 2009 would have been listed at $50,000-$55,000. The expert also testified that the value of the lot would only be "mini[562]*562mally affected, if at all" by the removal of the trees.
The Wiersums also presented expert testimony from another arborist who estimated restoration would cost about $34,000. The Wiersums' arborist's restoration estimate for Harder's land was based on the value of the trees removed, the cost of transplanting smaller Sitka spruce from other areas of Kodiak, and the addition of funds to compensate for "the value of what can't be replaced," such as 80 to 100 foot tall trees that were "growing in a forested environment where the root zones [were] intertwined, and ... where you can't just go and replace that exact tree in that environment." The trees that were removed were valued using the "trunk formula method." This method determines the value of a lost tree by first identifying the price of a replacement tree that is "the largest common available size," and then measuring a cross-section of the lost tree and extrapolating its price based on the price of the replacement tree. The ar-borist testified that this method is used when it is not possible to replace exact trees due to their size or their growth in a forested environment where their root zones are intertwined. He testified that some of the stumps he identified on Harder's land were from "hazardous trees" that would normally. receive a negative value because they would have to be removed by the owner before any house could be built on the property. But, in his appraisal, the arborist classified these trees as "habitat in a forest" and gave them a neutral value. The arborist testified that his restoration plan specifically took into account Harder's interest in restoring the privacy that his property had previously enjoyed.
At the conclusion of their evidence, the Wiersums renewed their motion for a directed verdict, arguing that there was no evidence of diminution in the value of Harder's property and that the only restoration cost figures offered into evidence were disproportionate in light of this "zero" diminution in value. They asserted that there was therefore no evidence in the record from which the jury could conclude that an award of restoration costs would be objectively reasonable. The superior court again denied the Wier-sums' motion.
The jury found that Harder had a "reason personal" 5 that justified restoring the property to its previous condition, and it awarded him $161,000 in compensatory restoration damages. The jury also found that Harder was entitled to statutory treble damages. The Wiersums then filed a motion for a judgment - notwithstanding - the - verdict (JNOV), arguing that "the restoration cost damages awarded to the Plaintiff Paul Harder are manifestly unreasonable as a matter of law in light of the zero diminution in the value of Mr. Harder's property that resulted from the trees being cut." The superior court denied the motion and entered a final judgment in favor of Harder. The Wiersums now appeal, arguing that the superior court erred by dismissing their claims against Wi-etfeld and by denying their directed verdict and JNOV motions.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the superior court's grant of summary judgment to Wietfeld de novo.6 Summary judgment is appropriate if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine dispute over the material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.7
We also review de novo the superi- or court's denial of the Wiersums' directed verdict and JNOV motions.8 The "substan[563]*563tive legal question" is whether, after reviewing the full record presented to the jury in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, a reasonable juror could possibly find in that party's favor.9 In reviewing the record, this court does not weigh conflicting evidence or judge witness eredibility.10
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The Superior Court Did Not Err By Granting Wietfeld's Motion For Summary Judgment And Dismissing The Claim Against Her.
The Wiersums brought a third-party complaint seeking to apportion fault to Wietfeld on the theory that she was negligent in misrepresenting her ownership of Harder's property when she gave the Wiersums permission to cut down trees. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Wietfeld, finding that she did not owe a duty to the Wiersums."11 But we have previously explained that "fault can only be apportioned under AS 09.17.080 to parties who may be liable to the plaintiff for money damages, including third-party defendants and settling parties." 12 Thus, the Wiersums' liability cannot decrease through apportionment to Wietfeld unless Wietfeld may be liable to Harder for negligence. While the superior court twice ruled that Wietfeld did not owe a duty to the Wiersums, it never addressed whether she owed a duty to Harder. But we are "not bound by the reasoning articulated by the superior court and can affirm a grant of summary judgment on - alternative grounds, including grounds not advanced by the superior court or the parties."13 We may therefore address the issue of whether Wietfeld owed a duty to Harder when she told the Wiersums that they could cut trees on her property.
1. Wietfeld owed no duty to Harder.
In their complaint, the Wiersums contended that fault must be apportioned to Wietfeld because she was negligent when she failed to disclose to the Wiersums that she did not know exactly where her property lines were and that Harder also owned property in the area.14 In essence, their negligence claim was based on the theory that Wietfeld had negligently misrepresented or failed to disclose information to the Wiersums, and her negligence caused the Wiersums to trespass on Harder's property and remove Harder's trees, thereby causing Harder to suffer damages.
Negligent misrepresentation requires a showing that a party made a misrepresentation "in the course of [her] business, profession, or employment, or in any other transaction in which [she] has a pecuniary interest.15 - Similarly, liability for failure to [564]*564disclose information when there is an affirmative duty to do so occurs when one party "fails to disclose to another a fact that he knows may justifiably induce the other to act or refrain from acting in a business transaction."16 There is no evidence to support, and the parties do not argue, that Wietfeld was involved in a business transaction with the Wiersums or had a pecuniary interest in the removal of the trees. Thus, Wietfeld owed no duty under a theory of negligent misrepresentation or failure to disclose information when she had an affirmative duty to do so.17
We turn next to the question whether Wietfeld owed a duty to Harder under a general negligence theory. The Wiersums argue that Wietfeld owed a broad duty of care to her neighbors-both themselves and Harder-and is liable for any unreasonable risk of harm to these parties that stems from her own conduct. They support this assertion with references to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 158 18 and § 165,19 as well as a treatise on tort law. They also cite to case law from other states for the rule that "[al landowner who intends to have timber cut on his land owes a duty to an adjoining landowner to ascertain the boundary line of the adjoining land with diligence and care.20 But these sources do not support the imposition of a duty in this case.
Sections 158 and 165 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts are inapplicable here. Comment j to section 158 indicates that the section is intended to apply to cases where "by any act of his, the actor intentionally causes a third person to enter land.21 To satisfy the element of intent, the actor must "command[ ] or request[ ]" a third person to enter the land of another.22 Section 158 thus applies the general principle that "one who intentionally causes another to do an act is under the same lability as though he himself does the act in question.23 There is no evidence in the record that Wietfeld commanded or requested that the Wiersums enter Harder's land and remove his trees. Seetion 158 is therefore inapplicable.
Section 165 similarly provides no support for the Wiersums' position. Section 165 imposes liability where a party recklessly or negligently enters land in possession of another, or causes "a thing or third person so to enter," and thereby harms the land.24 Comment a to this section indicates that the rule applies where "the conduct of the actor either ... involve[s] an unreasonable risk of invading the possessor's interest in his exclusive possession of the land, or ... [is] caused by an abnormally dangerous activity carried on by the actor." 25 As examples, the illustrations to section 165 indicate that Hability may apply to reckless or negligent driving of an automobile that results in a crash on another's land; a "balloon ascension" at a [565]*565county fair that the owners should realize is likely to touch down on the land of another, and does; a landowner's blasting to excavate a cellar that causes damage to a neighbor's house; and a jet pilot who crashes an experimental plane onto another party's land.26 Unlike these illustrations, Wietfeld's act of giving the Wiersums permission to cut trees on her own land did not present an unreasonable risk that the Wiersums would enter Harder's land and cut his trees. Section 165 is therefore also inapplicable here.
The Wiersums next cite case law from Texas for the rule that landowners who intend to cut timber on their own land owe a duty to adjoining landowners to ascertain the boundary lines of the adjoining land.27 This rule was established in Kirby Lumber Corp. v. Karpel,28 a seminal case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cireuit applied Texas law. In Kirby Lumber, landowners in Texas brought a suit for damages against their neighbors, a lumber corporation, and individuals who unwittingly advised a timber removal company to harvest trees from the landowners' property.29 The defendant-landowners had arranged with a timber removal company to eut and sell timber from their land to a lumber corporation.30 An agent for the defendant-landowners took a representative of the timber removal company to the property and pointed out "one or two" of the property lines.31 The agent then referred the representative to an associate who subsequently gave the representative incorrect boundary lines resulting in the removal of timber from a neighboring piece of property owned by the plaintiffs.32 The Fifth Circuit concluded that the defendant-landowners, acting through their agents, had failed to discharge their duty to show the correct location of the boundary lines and were therefore liable for trespass because they "aid[ed], assisted], or advise[d]" the timber removal company.33
Unlike the defendant-landowners in Kirby Lumber, Wietfeld did not seek out the Wier-sums to remove trees from her land, nor did she affirmatively offer inaccurate information about her property boundaries. The Wier-sums did not ask her for this information and, because this was not a business transaction, she was under no legal obligation to provide it.34 Under the reasoning of Kirby Lumber, and the line of cases that rely upon it, Wietfeld did not assume a duty to give accurate information to the Wiersums when they asked permission to remove her trees.
Finally, the Wiersums' reliance on Prosser and Keeton's treatise on tort law for the rule that a landowner owes a broad duty "to cause no unreasonable risks of harm to others in the vicinity" is also unavailing.35 Our prior decisions recognize that landowners have a "duty to use due care to guard against unreasonable risks created by dangerous conditions existing on their property.36 We have also held that a landowner must act "as a reasonable person in maintaining his property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances.37 But we have never previously gone so far as to hold that a [566]*566landowner has a broad duty to prevent the unreasonable risk of harm to her neighbors caused by third parties.
In the absence of statute, regulation, contract, or case law, the question of whether an actionable duty of care exists "is essentially a public policy question." 38 In D.S.W. v. Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, we identified a number of factors to guide this inquiry.39 As we recently observed in Hurn v. Greenway, foreseeability of harm is the most important factor, followed by the burden on the defendant and the consequences to the community.40 Thus, "there can be no duty where the harm is unforeseeable, but foreseeability alone is insufficient to establish a duty if the burden of taking care or the effect on society is too harsh." 41
The foreseeability of harm to Harder resulting from Wietfeld's conduct was low. Wietfeld made no active representation to the Wiersums to imply that the trees on the hillside near the Wiersums' property were hers and not Harder's. She merely gave the Wiersums permission to cut trees on her own land. It was thus foreseeable that the Wier-sums would cut trees on Wietfeld's property. But it was not foreseeable that the Wiersums would remove 70 large trees from the hillside of Harder's property-some of which were located between 800 and 400 feet from the Wiersums' own land-without conducting proper due diligence to identify the true property owner and then seeking that person's permission. "No person can be expected to guard against harm from events which are not reasonably to be anticipated at all, or are so unlikely to occur that the risk, although recognizable, would commonly be disregarded." 42
The burden on Wietfeld and the negative consequences to the community of imposing a duty under these cireumstances are also significant. Imposing such a duty would inflict large judgments on parties like Wietfeld, who would be forced to pay for the unforeseeable reckless or negligent conduct of a third party if it results in harm to a neighbor's property. The community would also be burdened because landowners would be required to acquire and provide accurate information about their property boundaries before granting their neighbors permission to take any action on their land, lest they be exposed to tort liability. We think a sounder policy is to require any party who seeks to benefit by removing trees from another's property to identify the true property owner and confirm accurate property boundaries.
On balance, we conclude that Wietfeld owed no duty to inform the Wiersums of Harder's property lines when they asked to cut trees on her property, and we affirm the superior court's grant of summary judgment to Wietfeld.
2. We decline to reverse the superior court's grant of summary judgment to Wietfeld based on new arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
The Wiersums also argue for the first time on appeal that there is a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Wietfeld is liable for trespass. But at trial, counsel for the Wiersums expressly stated that the Wi-ersums were "not trying to hold [Wietfeld] liable specifically for the elements of trespass." We have previously stated that we will affirm a grant of summary judgment on alternative grounds, including grounds that were not advanced by the parties, and may consider "any matter appearing in the record, even if not passed upon by the superior [567]*567court, in defense of the judgment." 43 But the Wiersums ask us to reverse a grant of summary judgment on grounds that were specifically disclaimed at trial and therefore not considered by the superior court. In the interests of fairness to the trial court and justice to Wietfeld, we decline to reverse the superior court's ruling based on new arguments raised for the first time on appeal.44
B. The Superior Court Did Not Err By Denying The Wiersums' Motions For Directed Verdicts.
The Wiersums challenge the superi- or court's denial of their two motions for directed verdicts on Harder's claim for restoration damages. They argue that Harder presented insufficient evidence of a reason personal to justify restoration damages. Harder contends that the Wiersums have failed to preserve this argument because they did not challenge the existence of his reason personal in either of their motions for directed verdict. In the alternative, Harder argues that he presented sufficient evidence of a reason personal for the issue to reach the jury.
As a general matter, a party waives an argument if the party did not raise it in the superior court.45 Harder is correct that the Wiersums did not explicitly challenge the existence of his reason personal when they moved for directed verdict,. The Wiersums' arguments in favor of directed verdict centered on an alleged lack of evidence of diminution in the value of Harder's property, and thus lack of a basis for an award of damages. The Wiersums have therefore waived the argument that Harder presented insufficient evidence of a reason personal and after reviewing the merits of the Wiersums' argument, we conclude that there was no reversible error by the superior court.46
We have recognized that a party who is injured by an invasion of his property "not totally destroying its value" may choose as damages "either the loss in value or reasonable restoration costs." 47 To determine whether an award of restoration costs is appropriate, we have adopted the test set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 929,48 which provides in part:
(1) If one is entitled to a judgment for harm to land resulting from a past invasion and not amounting to a total destruction of value, the damages include compensation for
(a) the difference between the value of the land before the harm and the value after the harm, or at his election in an appropriate case, the cost of restoration that has been or may be reasonably incurred.[49]
Comment b to § 929 explains that damages are measured only by the difference between the value of the land before and after the harm if the "cost of replacing the land in its original condition is disproportionate to the diminution in the value of the land caused by the trespass, unless there is a reason personal to the owner for restoring the original [568]*568condition." 50 We have previously interpreted "reason personal" to mean peculiar or special to the owner.51 We require the landowner to demonstrate a reason personal because we believe it indicates cireumstances "where the owner holds property primarily for use rather than for sale and where the owner is likely to make repairs with the restoration costs award rather than to pocket the funds and enjoy a windfall." 52
In G & A Contractors, Inc. v. Alaska Greenhouses, we concluded that restoration damages were proper because the plaintiffs use of the damaged property as "a showplace in connection with his nursery business" was a purpose "peculiar" to the plaintiff.53 In Osborne v. Hurst, we suggested that a reason personal may also exist where a plaintiff owns a piece of property "because of its unique views, its abundant trees, and the unusual juxtaposition of the trees, the cabin, and the views." 54 We also found relevant the plaintiff's testimony that "other properties in the area were not comparable," and that she and her partner planned to use the property for their retirement.55
In Andersen v. Edwards, however, we determined that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a reason personal because he had not shown that trees cut on his property were particularly valuable to him "because of their beauty, location, quality, size or other particular features." 56 The trees were not "ornamental" and did not have any "special value" beyond the fact that they were located on the plaintiff's property.57 We concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the trees would be restored, and we held that the appropriate measure of damages was the diminution in value of the property or the economic value of the timber that was cut.58
Harder presented evidence at trial that he held on to the Monashka property for 34 years and that he intended to build a house and live on Lot 1A onee his son graduated from college because "it's a very beautiful piece of property." Harder's sister confirmed that Harder intended to build a cabin on the property. A real estate agent also testified that he approached Harder about selling the land, but Harder refused to sell. And Harder testified that he "[didn't] want money," he only "want[ed his] trees back" and was therefore asking for damages to restore the property by replanting the forested area. He testified that Lot 1A had a "big, nice, beautiful" carpet of moss and that the property was very private, because the tall trees sereened the neighboring houses from view. He also testified that he enjoyed spending time with his children on the property, but that after the trees were cut down, the property "looked totally different": It was now "full of salmonberry bushes, ... whereas it was just like thick moss before," and he reported that he had not heard any ravens there since the trees were cut. In light of this testimony, we cannot conclude that the superior court erred in determining that Harder had presented sufficient evidence of a reason personal for the issue of restoration costs to be submitted to the jury
C. - The Superior Court Erred By Denying The Wiersums' JNOV Motion.
The Wiersums also challenge the superior court's denial of their JNOV motion. They argue that the superior court erred because the jury's award of restoration damages is objectively unreasonable given its disproportionate relationship to the property's diminution in value and because Harder's "minimal use of and contribution to the land's special value would at most justify a marginal award of restoration costs." Harder argues that the jury's award was supported by [569]*569sufficient evidence and was "the minimal amount reasonable to restore the trees."
We have twice considered the reasonableness of restoration costs that exceed the diminution in the market value of the plaintiffs property. In @ & A Contractors, we rejected a defendant's argument that restoration damages were "grossly disproportionate" where the property owner had paid $4,000 per acre for the property and the jury awarded $12,550 for restoring 10,560 square feet (about a quarter-acre) of land.59 Because the owner "indicated that the principle value of the property was from the creek running through it," and claimed that he intended to use the property "to create a showplace in connection with his nursery business," we held that "it was not error to award the reasonable cost of restoring the property to its original condition." 60
Subsequently, in Osborne, we cautioned that "restoration costs exceeding diminished market value may be awarded only to the extent such added costs are objectively reasonable in light of the 'reason personal' and in light of the diminution in value." 61 The plaintiff in Osborne had advanced a noncommercial reason personal based on the property's "unique views, its abundant trees, and the unusual juxtaposition of the trees, the cabin, and the views."62 We recognized that the record "unquestionably showed that restoration costs were disproportionately higher than diminished market value" where the property owners sought restoration costs of $170,000 for property that had only diminished in value from $32,000 to $21,000.98.63 We emphasized that a restoration award must be limited to "the cost of restoration that has been or may be reasonably incurred," and that the purpose for this rule is "to reduce the economic waste that occurs when a party incurs repair costs in excess of the diminished value of the property." 64
Taken together, @ & A Contractors and Osborne instruct that restoration costs exceeding diminished market value may be awarded only to the extent that restoration costs are objectively reasonable in light of the property owner's reason personal and the diminution in value of the property. The application of this general principle must ensure that an award of restoration damages does not confer a windfall upon a landowner.
The California Court of Appeal addressed this issue in a factually similar case. In Heninger v. Dunn,65 a property owner lived on wooded property in the mountains and his neighbors bulldozed a road across his land, damaging trees and vegetation.66 The road actually increased the property's value from $179,000 to $184,000.67 Because there was no depreciation in property value, the superi- or court ruled that the property owners were not entitled to any damages.68 The appeals court reversed, relying on the general rule that restoration costs that exceed the property's decrease in fair market value may be justified if the owner has a reason personal for restoring the property to its original condition.69 - But the Heninger court stressed that property owners may only recover reasonable costs of replacing destroyed trees, explaining that restoration of property to its original condition may not always be reasonable:
Proposed replacement costs may be unreasonable or exeessive in relation to the dam[570]*570age inflicted upon the land or its value prior to the trespass. In such cases, the achievement of a reasonable approximation of the land's former condition may involve something less than substantially identical restoration. ... [)t may be more appropriate to award costs for the planting of saplings, or a few mature trees, or underbrush to prevent erosion and achieve a lesser but, over time, reasonable aesthetic restoration.[70]
The California court concluded that "substantially identical restoration," which was estimated to cost approximately $240,000 and involved transplanting a large number of mature trees, was "a manifestly unreasonable expense in relation to the value of the land prior to the trespass." 71 The court instructed that, on remand, the trial court's determination of reasonable restoration costs should focus on whether restoring the property with sapling trees and ground cover would achieve reasonable aesthetic restoration.72
Applying these principle to Harder's property, the award of $161,000 in restoration costs is objectively unreasonable in light of the pre-trespass total value of Harder's property, Harder's reason personal for restoration, and the absence of any documented decrease in the value of Harder's property. Under these cireumstances, it is "more appropriate to award costs for the planting of saplings, or a few mature trees, or underbrush to prevent erosion and achieve a lesser but, over time, reasonable aesthetic restoration."73 The record shows that Harder's property could be reasonably restored by replacing at least some of the mature Sitka spruce with saplings or smaller trees and that because the property's large trees were "growing in a forested environment where the root zones [were] intertwined" it was not possible to "replace that exact tree in that environment."
In light of the record in this case and decisions in G & A Contractors and Osborne, we conclude that the superior court erred in denying the Wiersums' motion for a JNOV. The jury was required to base its restoration award on a finding that the restoration costs were objectively reasonable in light of the value of Harder's land, the diminution of its value, and his reason personal. In this case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, as we must when we review a superior court's decision to grant or deny a JNOV,74 we conclude that no reasonable juror would award restoration costs totaling more than four times the full fair market value of Harder's property before the trespass. Because we conclude that the jury's award of $161,000 in compensatory restoration damages was objectively unreasonable, and that the Wiersums were entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we vacate the damage award and remand for a new trial on damages.
Because a new trial on damages is required, we address the question whether inadmissible evidence was admitted at trial in order to provide guidance to the trial court on remand. The Wiersums argue that the superior court erred by allowing inadmissible evidence and improper arguments. A review of the record shows that the Wiersums failed to object to much of the evidence that they now challenge on appeal. The Wiersums do, however, identify one piece of evidence that the superior court admitted over their objection: The superior court allowed Harder to testify to and submit as evidence a purported notarized "contract" with the jurors, promising them that he would use any award of restoration damages to restore his property. Harder was then permitted to testify that "if the jury is not cool with this document, you [571]*571can write anything you want for me. I'll do it."
We agree with the Wiersums that Harder's tactic is unprecedented and that allowing this evidence was improper and "fundamentally unfair" As the Wiersums correctly maintain, "a promise of restoration couched in the form of a contract is a particularly misleading form of a promise." This is exemplified by Harder's claim in the purported contract that he would restore the property "at the risk of being prosecuted for fraud." But Harder's one-sided promise with the jury was not legally enforceable. Moreover, by suggesting that the jury could modify the agreement and "write anything [they] want for me," Harder intimated that the jurors had some control over the terms of the purported agreement, which they did not.
Because contracts are widely recognized to be legally enforceable agreements, proposing such a "contract" with the jurors was likely to have misled jurors into believing that Harder's promise to restore his property was legally enforceable when it was not. The jury's decision on the proper amount of damages could thus have been impermissibly influenced by a false belief that Harder was legally bound to use a damage award to restore his property. On remand, this evidence and testimony shall not be admitted.
v. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the superior court's decision granting summary judgment to Wietfeld and dismissing the claim against her. We AFFIRM the superior court's decision denying the Wiersums' two motions for directed verdict. We REVERSE, however, the superior court's ruling denying the Wiersums' JNOV motion and we REMAND for a new trial on damages.
FABE, Chief Justice, concurring.