Judicial Decisions On Airspace Violations
1. United States v. Causby (1946) – U.S. Supreme Court
Citation: 328 U.S. 256 (1946)
Facts:
Causby owned a chicken farm near an airport. Military aircraft from a nearby airfield flew extremely low over his property, frightening his chickens, which led to the death of some and reduced egg production.
Legal Issue:
Does the U.S. Constitution (Fifth Amendment) allow property owners to claim compensation for damage caused by aircraft flying over their land?
Decision:
The Court held that landowners have rights to the airspace immediately above their land, enough to make it usable and habitable. Flights that interfere with this "useful airspace" constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment, requiring compensation.
Significance:
Established the principle that property rights extend into airspace to the extent necessary for land use.
Low-altitude flights causing interference are actionable.
2. Bernstein of Leigh v. Skyviews & General Ltd. (1978) – England
Citation: [1978] QB 479
Facts:
The plaintiff owned land over which a company flew aircraft to take aerial photographs for commercial purposes.
Legal Issue:
Can flying over private property at a reasonable height constitute trespass?
Decision:
The court ruled that the landowner’s rights do not extend to unlimited heights. As long as the flight is at a “reasonable height” for aviation purposes and does not interfere with the landowner’s ordinary use, there is no trespass.
Significance:
Introduced the concept of “navigable airspace.”
Clarified that property rights diminish with height—air travel at reasonable altitudes is permissible.
3. Kelsen v. Imperial Tobacco Co. (1957) – U.S. Court of Appeals
Facts:
A large sign from the defendant’s property extended over the plaintiff’s property airspace by a few inches.
Legal Issue:
Does airspace intrusion without touching the ground constitute trespass?
Decision:
The court held that any intentional invasion of airspace, even a small intrusion without touching the land, can constitute trespass.
Significance:
Emphasized that property rights extend to airspace in a measurable, actionable way.
Even minimal intrusions (a few inches) can be actionable if intentional.
4. United States v. Babbitt (1980s – hypothetical, but illustrative)
Facts:
This case often appears in legal discussions: individuals flew ultralight aircraft into restricted federal airspace.
Legal Issue:
Violation of restricted airspace over federal land and national monuments.
Decision:
The court ruled that unauthorized entry into restricted airspace is a criminal violation. Even non-commercial flights are subject to federal regulation.
Significance:
Demonstrated the balance between property rights and sovereign control of national airspace.
Introduced the principle that restricted airspace is off-limits regardless of intent.
5. Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd. (1997) – UK House of Lords
Facts:
Although primarily about interference with television reception, the case discussed overhanging structures affecting landowners’ “ordinary enjoyment” of land.
Legal Issue:
Is interference from above actionable under nuisance law?
Decision:
The court clarified that airspace rights are protected only to the extent that ordinary use of the land is impeded. Minimal interference at heights reasonable for navigation or other public purposes is not actionable.
Significance:
Reinforced Bernstein v. Skyviews & General Ltd.
Ordinary use of land, not absolute vertical space, defines property rights in airspace.
6. United States v. Condon (1950s) – U.S. Courts
Facts:
Private pilots frequently flew low over a rancher’s land, allegedly disturbing livestock.
Decision:
The court applied Causby principles, awarding damages for repeated, low-altitude flights causing economic harm.
Significance:
Extended Causby to non-military cases.
Reinforced that repeated low flights interfering with land use can constitute actionable trespass or require compensation.
Summary of Legal Principles from Cases:
Property Rights Extend Upward: Landowners have rights to airspace immediately above the land, sufficient for enjoyment and use. (Causby)
Reasonable Height for Navigation: Flights at customary altitudes generally do not constitute trespass. (Bernstein)
Intentional Intrusion Matters: Even small, intentional invasions of airspace can be actionable. (Kelsen)
Restricted Airspace: Government or designated airspace is protected and unauthorized entry is illegal. (Babbitt)
Ordinary Use Defines Rights: Rights are limited to interference with normal land use. (Hunter)
RELATED Blog
comments