Homeowner Claims Airspace Up To 500 ft Above His House - Legal?

[geigy]

Yep its been done already, more than once.

Google Admits Street View Project Violated Privacy

Quebec Woman Wins Lawsuit Against Google For Street View Of Her Breast

But when you're Google, you can easily shake off a $7,000,000 lawsuit and keep on trucking.

$7000, not $7 million, in this case.

 

[cderoche]

$7000, not $7 million, in this case.

$7000, not $7 million, in this case.

The fine was $7 million in the first link.

 

[geigy]

The fine was $7 million in the first link.

Right - guess I just clicked on the one with the lady in her undies. No idea why that would be.

 

[cderoche]

Right - guess I just clicked on the one with the lady in her undies. No idea why that would be.

lol

 

[bluntnose]

Some states have carved out a 250 foot altitude barrier. 1. Fly over your neighbor's property once, 2. get a letter saying don't do that, and 3. do it again = treble damages, plaintiff's attorney fees and costs. The exception is for locally registered ch 107 pilots operating for business purposes. Frankly I wouldn't want to see what your average jury thinks the damages should be. But we will find out, because some of the attitudes expressed on this forum make it a dead certainty that the lawsuits will come, and the law will be laid down.

Now close your eyes tight and repeat 3 times "We need a national quadcopter association to protect our rights."

Nevada:

NRS 493.103  Unmanned aerial vehicles: Action for trespass against owner or operator; exceptions; award of treble damages for injury to person or property; award of attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person who owns or lawfully occupies real property in this State may bring an action for trespass against the owner or operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle that is flown at a height of less than 250 feet over the property if:
(a) The owner or operator of the unmanned aerial vehicle has flown the unmanned aerial vehicle over the property at a height of less than 250 feet on at least one previous occasion; and
(b) The person who owns or occupies the real property notified the owner or operator of the unmanned aerial vehicle that the person did not authorize the flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle over the property at a height of less than 250 feet. For the purposes of this paragraph, a person may place the owner or operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle on notice in the manner prescribed in subsection 2 of NRS 207.200.
2.  A person may not bring an action pursuant to subsection 1 if:
(a) The unmanned aerial vehicle is lawfully in the flight path for landing at an airport, airfield or runway.
(b) The unmanned aerial vehicle is in the process of taking off or landing.
(c) The unmanned aerial vehicle was under the lawful operation of:
(1) A law enforcement agency in accordance with NRS 493.112.
(2) A public agency in accordance with NRS 493.115.
(d) The unmanned aerial vehicle was under the lawful operation of a business registered in this State or a land surveyor if:
(1) The operator is licensed or otherwise approved to operate the unmanned aerial vehicle by the Federal Aviation Administration;
(2) The unmanned aerial vehicle is being operated within the scope of the lawful activities of the business or surveyor; and
(3) The operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle does not unreasonably interfere with the existing use of the real property.
3.  A plaintiff who prevails in an action for trespass brought pursuant to subsection 1 is entitled to recover treble damages for any injury to the person or the real property as the result of the trespass. In addition to the recovery of damages pursuant to this subsection, a plaintiff may be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief.

 

[cderoche]

Some states have carved out a 250 foot altitude barrier. 1. Fly over your neighbor's property once, 2. get a letter saying don't do that, and 3. do it again = treble damages, plaintiff's attorney fees and costs. The exception is for locally registered ch 107 pilots operating for business purposes. Frankly I wouldn't want to see what your average jury thinks the damages should be. But we will find out, because some of the attitudes expressed on this forum make it a dead certainty that the lawsuits will come, and the law will be laid down.

Now close your eyes tight and repeat 3 times "We need a national quadcopter association to protect our rights."

Nevada:

NRS 493.103  Unmanned aerial vehicles: Action for trespass against owner or operator; exceptions; award of treble damages for injury to person or property; award of attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person who owns or lawfully occupies real property in this State may bring an action for trespass against the owner or operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle that is flown at a height of less than 250 feet over the property if:
(a) The owner or operator of the unmanned aerial vehicle has flown the unmanned aerial vehicle over the property at a height of less than 250 feet on at least one previous occasion; and
(b) The person who owns or occupies the real property notified the owner or operator of the unmanned aerial vehicle that the person did not authorize the flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle over the property at a height of less than 250 feet. For the purposes of this paragraph, a person may place the owner or operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle on notice in the manner prescribed in subsection 2 of NRS 207.200.
2.  A person may not bring an action pursuant to subsection 1 if:
(a) The unmanned aerial vehicle is lawfully in the flight path for landing at an airport, airfield or runway.
(b) The unmanned aerial vehicle is in the process of taking off or landing.
(c) The unmanned aerial vehicle was under the lawful operation of:
(1) A law enforcement agency in accordance with NRS 493.112.
(2) A public agency in accordance with NRS 493.115.
(d) The unmanned aerial vehicle was under the lawful operation of a business registered in this State or a land surveyor if:
(1) The operator is licensed or otherwise approved to operate the unmanned aerial vehicle by the Federal Aviation Administration;
(2) The unmanned aerial vehicle is being operated within the scope of the lawful activities of the business or surveyor; and
(3) The operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle does not unreasonably interfere with the existing use of the real property.
3.  A plaintiff who prevails in an action for trespass brought pursuant to subsection 1 is entitled to recover treble damages for any injury to the person or the real property as the result of the trespass. In addition to the recovery of damages pursuant to this subsection, a plaintiff may be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief.

I thought the FAA regulated airspace? Seems like a conflict at best. Hope the feds shoot any local ordinances down that look like this one. Plus how to prove 250 feet? Even the altimeter is pretty off on the quads themselves. You know what this smells of? Government wanting more tax money. I can see the UAS Permit offices sprouting up all over. Oh no! I can't fly my hobby sized quad anywhere, wait a minute, if I just file for a $150 permit no I'm "legal." Governments suck. Oh wait I missed this part:
(1) The operator is licensed or otherwise approved to operate the unmanned aerial vehicle by the Federal Aviation Administration;
That means anyone who registered their quad is authorized to fly. The words otherwise approved by the FAA. Which we are. There's the loophole.

 

[Rogue.Aircraft]

Having a right to capture the drone is one thing, discharging a firearm in a residential area is a totally different thing.

 

[bluntnose]

(1) The operator is licensed or otherwise approved to operate the unmanned aerial vehicle by the Federal Aviation Administration;
That means anyone who registered their quad is authorized to fly. The words otherwise approved by the FAA. Which we are. There's the loophole.

Au contraire, mon ami, the registration provision means it must be a business (i.e. corporation, LLC, etc.) registered with the Nevada Secretary of State, and approved to fly by FAA.
I only brought this up to show that there may be ways to comply with local government laws and arm the Ch 107 flyers with some evidence of lawful compliance it they run into that obnoxious neighbor. If you're doing it with a business umbrella anyway (i.,e. corporate protections, insurance, FAA reg.) there's a way open to put yourself in a legally defensible position. If you formed a Nevada LLC, you're already registered with the Nv Sec of State, same as with any other state adopting similar law.

That doesn't do anything for the pure hobbyist flyer, but then this isn't the only sport to nudge one towards using a corporate shield to protect an essentially sport motivated activity.

 

[cderoche]

Au contraire, mon ami, the registration provision means it must be a business (i.e. corporation, LLC, etc.) registered with the Nevada Secretary of State, and approved to fly by FAA.
I only brought this up to show that there may be ways to comply with local government laws and arm the Ch 107 flyers with some evidence of lawful compliance it they run into that obnoxious neighbor. If you're doing it with a business umbrella anyway (i.,e. corporate protections, insurance, FAA reg.) there's a way open to put yourself in a legally defensible position. If you formed a Nevada LLC, you're already registered with the Nv Sec of State, same as with any other state adopting similar law.

That doesn't do anything for the pure hobbyist flyer, but then this isn't the only sport to nudge one towards using a corporate shield to protect an essentially sport motivated activity.

Good point.

There will always be certain people mad at their neighbors for something. This is one of the latest somethings. I guess try to be civil and friends with those you can. Avoid the others.

 

[sinaus]

I don't mean literally your "neighbor". The man voicing his concern is not even in my neighborhood, although he used an information sharing site called Nextdoor. He is just saying that if you accidentally cross his property at under 500 ft (!!!) that you are violating his personal property airspace and he will bring charges against you. I get that he could do it. But I guess I was wondering if anyone else had been confronted with the "Bundle Of Rights" "law" he is claiming?

I am wondering how much he paid for that airspace he had claimed he "owns"? This guy must be awfully rich. I be his friend and YES YOU SHOULD NOT FLY OVER HIM. HAHA.

 

[Vmaxhp]

Ask him for proof of ownership of the airspace. A reasonable request. A deed, city/county/state ordinance. Some official govt doc stating ownership of airspace above the land.

 

[zero1981]

I guess since we are flying the mavics he would not be able to hear it once it flys more than 30 ft off the ground anyway. Perhaps fly full sports mode over his house hahaha. [emoji23]

Can hear my mavic well above the 400ft limits when checking towers

 

[ac0j]

Ask him for proof of ownership of the airspace. A reasonable request. A deed, city/county/state ordinance. Some official govt doc stating ownership of airspace above the land.

If he doesn't own the air above his house, would that mean he couldn't add a second level to his home, or put up an antenna tower?
I know in certain large citys there has been transfer/sale of air rights above a structure to anther person. There was even a movie about it. Don't remember the name, but Christina Aguilara, and Cher where in it.
But at any rate, If he doesnt want you flying over his house, why would you want to?

 

[Lopez0015]

Maybe is going to sounds stupid.. but I think I read some were you own 200 ft over you propriety or 500 ft and that’s why helicopters can’t fly below that, I will see I can find it.. there is a bill on USA for some like.. Drone Federalism Act 5 of 2017’

 

[goldwein]

I hope he has a very large NO TRESPASSING sign on his property.

 

[ac0j]

I hope he has a very large NO TRESPASSING sign on his property.

You dont have to have a sign. If you are on or using property that does not belong to you, you are trespassing.
The sign is just so stupid people know that they will be prosecuted. Mailmen trespass every day, but the property owners dont fight it because he is doing a service for them.

"Trespass to Land"
In modern law the word trespass is used most commonly to describe the intentional and wrongful invasion of another's real property. An action for trespass can be maintained by the owner or anyone else who has a lawful right to occupy the real property, such as the owner of an apartment building, a tenant, or a member of the tenant's family. The action can be maintained against anyone who interferes with the right of ownership or possession, whether the invasion is by a person or by something that a person has set in motion. For example, a hunter who enters fields where hunting is forbidden is a trespasser, and so is a company that throws rocks onto neighboring land when it is blasting.

Every unlawful entry onto another's property is trespass, even if no harm is done to the property. A person who has a right to come onto the land may become a trespasser by committing wrongful acts after entry. For example, a mail carrier has a privilege to walk up the sidewalk at a private home but is not entitled to go through the front door. A person who enters property with permission but stays after he has been told to leave also commits a trespass. Moreover, an intruder cannot defend himself in a trespass action by showing that the plaintiff did not have a completely valid legal right to the property. The reason for all of these rules is that the action of trespass exists to prevent breaches of the peace by protecting the quiet possession of real property.

In a trespass action, the plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant intended to trespass but only that she intended to do whatever caused the trespass. It is no excuse that the trespasser mistakenly believed that she was not doing wrong or that she did not understand the wrong. A child can be a trespasser, as can a person who thought that she was on her own land.

 

[Marko9219]

Not sure why a) you would fly over someone's house and b) why you would want to antagonise your neighbours.

Say what? I fly over my neighbood homes on a daily basis! I have to if I want to get to the mountainside I watch deer at. Quit being so complacent! It's no different than walking by their house on the sidewalk. In fact, it's much less of a deal. Very few homes have windows on their roof tops that allow me to look in from 100 ft in the air. Just about every home has a window facing the sidewalk that's only 30 ft away! I'm getting tired of people acting like these drones need to be hidden from neighbors and other citizens. We went through this same crap when cameras started showing up in phones. I remember my gym even posted a sign "NO CAMERA PHONES ALLOWED IN THE LOCKER ROOMS!" Yeah, we got through that nonsense right? We'll get through this to. Expose your neighbors to the sights and sounds of a Mavic passing over their homes at 20 mph a hundred ft in the air. They'll get used to it. Before we know it, Amazon drones will be setting packages on our doorsteps.

 

[Marko9219]

Not sure why a) you would fly over someone's house and b) why you would want to antagonise your neighbours.

Where do you live? A ranch in Montana surrounded by 50,000 acres of your own property? I have about 20 homes I need to pass over to get to a mountainside where I like to watch animals. Is it a bit different flying over them at 100 ft than driving by them at 50 ft on a noisy Harley Davidson?

 

[ac0j]

It is possible to do without anyone really noticing. Go straight up to 100 to 400 ft, then cross over the property in question.
It isnt doing it that causes problems, it is people noticing you doing it that starts the crap.

 

[cderoche]

Ask him for proof of ownership of the airspace. A reasonable request. A deed, city/county/state ordinance. Some official govt doc stating ownership of airspace above the land.

I like that idea. Maybe I leased all of the air space this year for the whole neighborhood lol