Angry neighbor

[lisadoc]

Well, that's not exactly what the Court said. This case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It wasn't decided on the merits of the case. The federal judge simply decided that the case belonged in state courts, not a federal court. The drone owner tried to bring the case in the federal court system (which are generally much less "congested" and can be more expeditious), arguing that this was a federal case under FAA federal regulations, as it was in FAA-controlled federal airspace at the time it was destroyed. The judge didn't buy that argument (as the FAA wasn't party to the suit) and noted that the case was better suited for the state courts.

This is a far cry from ultimately determining anything about the legal merits of a property owner's rights to control the airspace above them and to destroy private property of another that might be considered "aerial trespassing". That issue and case law still remains "up in the air" (so to speak), and has not been determined in most jurisdictions.

 

[cderoche]

I don't even see a noise problem being an issue with a drone, lawn mower is loud enough to warrant hearing protection, not so with even the bigger Inspire model. The photographer might be driving an F-350 Diesel Truck, much louder than a Mavic
Would be interesting to see the outcome. Hope all drone pilots fly responsibly and we never have to learn on the other hand.