Couple Suing Hot Air Balloon Pilot For Flying Over Their Property

[mavic3usa]

This should be interesting (not me or my video).

 

[Vic Moss]

Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos ("Whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell.") was found to have "no place in the modern world" thanks to the Causby case in 1946.

This case will get thrown out.

 

[Robert Prior]

Given that they want to prohibit all flight over their property, I rather doubt this will get anywhere.

 

[Felix le Chat]

Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos ("Whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell.") was found to have "no place in the modern world" thanks to the Causby case in 1946.

This case will get thrown out.

Also in British Law.... but a wee-bit earlier than 1946: Pickering versus Rudd (1815) (4 camp 216) where the court held it would not be trespass if a balloon flew over someone's property.

 

[Vic Moss]

Also in British Law.... but a wee-bit earlier than 1946: Pickering versus Rudd (1815) (4 camp 216) where the court held it would not be trespass if a balloon flew over someone's property.

The original text was from British Common Law.

 

[mavic3usa]

Personal opinion, I would rather for this case to go to trial and logging a solid win and getting positive rulings on key issues.

More commentary and important history:

Trial nears for hot-air balloon lawsuit; couple alleges trespass via airspace

A Frederick County couple is accusing a hot-air balloon company and its owner of invading their privacy and trespassing through their property’s airspace, raising concerns among hot-air balloon pilots and

www.fredericknewspost.com

edit: few days later after the verdict, please view the followup to this video in post #19

 

[Vic Moss]

Personal opinion, I would rather for this case to go to trial and logging a solid win and getting positive rulings on key issues.

More commentary and important history:

Trial nears for hot-air balloon lawsuit; couple alleges trespass via airspace

A Frederick County couple is accusing a hot-air balloon company and its owner of invading their privacy and trespassing through their property’s airspace, raising concerns among hot-air balloon pilots and

www.fredericknewspost.com

Judge told the hapless couple to go fly a kit. Well, not exactly, but it would have been awesome if she did. I guess that's one reason I'd make a horrible judge.

Judge rules in favor of hot-air balloon company after plaintiffs, with no attorney, end case

A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a hot-air balloon company and its owner in a lawsuit, after a Union Bridge couple who sued said they would not move

www.fredericknewspost.com

 

[mavic3usa]

Judge told the hapless couple to go fly a kit. Well, not exactly, but it would have been awesome if he did. I guess that's one reason I'd make a horrible judge.

Judge rules in favor of hot-air balloon company after plaintiffs, with no attorney, end case

A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a hot-air balloon company and its owner in a lawsuit, after a Union Bridge couple who sued said they would not move

www.fredericknewspost.com

Excellent. We need positive rulings in our favor showing that the current rules and regulators aren't so much as open to interpretation every time someone has a issue. Many of these details should be completely settled and getting good rulings thru the legal system is a win for the entire community.

 

[Vic Moss]

There are some great comments in that article.

"Maharaj and Blatter (the plaintiffs) did not respond to questions from a News-Post reporter as they left the courtroom."

"This was the third time Maharaj and Blatter were asking a judge to postpone a trial after their attorney, Jacob Weddle, asked to withdraw from the case on Christmas Eve." Merry Christmas!!!!

"Maharaj expressed outrage as she asked McGuckian (presiding Judge) for a postponement on Monday, and said she was baffled that a judge would force the couple to go to trial without an attorney. She said it was “unconditionally prejudiced” and “beyond abuse of discretion” and power.
“This has never before happened in the history of Maryland,” Maharaj said.
They are not trained or educated to be attorneys, she said."

"Blatter, who was mostly silent, reiterated Maharaj’s points.
“We need an attorney, badly,” he said."

Master of the Obvious! Glad it ended well for the hot air balloon company.

 

[JeffreyS]

Sorry, not interesting.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Sorry, not interesting.

If they had succeeded in their attempted suit then surely the door would have been flung wide-open to banning over-flights by all air craft. If correct then it is very relevant.

 

[Vic Moss]

Sorry, not interesting.

It would have been very interesting if they succeeded. That would have had a devastating impact on the UAS world.

 

[Cafguy]

Maybe if he built a lighted Do not fly over sign on his roof that could be seen from 30,000 ft. Then the Airlines might be kind enough to fly around his home! After all everybody knows how much they go out on a limb for their customers!

 

[Meta4]

"Blatter, who was mostly silent, reiterated Maharaj’s points.
“We need an attorney, badly,” he said."

It sounds like they didn't listen to the lawyer that they engaged, who probably advised that they didn't have a case.
Another lawyer wouldn't have made any difference.
If you don't have a case, you don't have a case.

 

[MS Coast]

Personal opinion, I would rather for this case to go to trial and logging a solid win and getting positive rulings on key issues.

More commentary and important history:

Trial nears for hot-air balloon lawsuit; couple alleges trespass via airspace

A Frederick County couple is accusing a hot-air balloon company and its owner of invading their privacy and trespassing through their property’s airspace, raising concerns among hot-air balloon pilots and

www.fredericknewspost.com

The ruling is already there, firmly established in precedent. Your property rights do not extend substantially above your terrestrial property.

There's no reason for the case to go to trial to affirm a ruling already made in a far more significant case. It's going to be tossed out. Courts don't bother to re-affirm previous decisions, except in appeals.

 

[Felix le Chat]

If they had succeeded in their attempted suit then surely the door would have been flung wide-open to banning over-flights by all air craft. If correct then it is very relevant.

Although it would've been funny watching commercial aircraft swerve round their "property". Would make for interesting contrails

 

[mavic3usa]

The ruling is already there, firmly established in precedent. Your property rights do not extend substantially above your terrestrial property.

There's no reason for the case to go to trial to affirm a ruling already made in a far more significant case. It's going to be tossed out. Courts don't bother to re-affirm previous decisions, except in appeals.

Not that right but others issues that are brought up in the case.

 

[Vic Moss]

The ruling is already there, firmly established in precedent. Your property rights do not extend substantially above your terrestrial property.

There's no reason for the case to go to trial to affirm a ruling already made in a far more significant case. It's going to be tossed out. Courts don't bother to re-affirm previous decisions, except in appeals.

Correct, the ruling is there. But every time a new ruling confirms an older ruling, it gives it even more credence in future lawsuits or trials.

 

[mavic3usa]

Follow-up to original video:

 

[DroneTats]

This should be interesting (not me or my video).

LOL, isn't the air very similar to water and land owned around it? I don't even need to look this up to know it's been thrown out.