Thoughts on Tort Law

[Slim.slamma]

Pay Attention to This One: Can You Be Sued for Flying a Drone Over Private Property? The Next Draft of that Tort Law

So we went from 83’ to 200’ over private property

 

[Cyberpower678]

200' failed. So we are still at 83'

 

[Drone on]

I am curious as to how anyone could determine it's your drone at 83, 200, or other altitude; especially in sport mode.
Would this be a criminal offense, or civil offense? I would think civil. If so, what would the person bringing the suit expect to be awarded?

 

[AMann]

My thoughts? Ok, but within reason...like is the drone looking directly in windows, etc.? But if people expect this law to fly, then dont expect planes flying aerial photography missions with large format, high resolution cameras to divert around the same property, otherwise be prepared to also prohibit all aerials from being taken while high up over said private property. It is the same thing as photographing someone’s home from the street or by using a pole mounted camera or even a selfie stick from anpublic location adjacent to private property.

Check this one out - it will not hold up in the Supreme Court either: New Florida Law Prohibits Drone Pictures on Private Property

 

[Thomas B]

Google Earth will be our first line of defense.

 

[Chip]

I am curious as to how anyone could determine it's your drone at 83, 200, or other altitude; especially in sport mode.
Would this be a criminal offense, or civil offense? I would think civil. If so, what would the person bringing the suit expect to be awarded?

That depends entirely on state law. For example, Florida law provides:

A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone.

The remedies for violation are as follows:

REMEDIES FOR VIOLATION.—

(b) The owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property may initiate a civil action for compensatory damages for violations of this section and may seek injunctive relief to prevent future violations of this section against a person, state agency, or political subdivision that violates paragraph (3)(b). In such action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees from the nonprevailing party based on the actual and reasonable time expended by his or her attorney billed at an appropriate hourly rate and, in cases in which the payment of such a fee is contingent on the outcome, without a multiplier, unless the action is tried to verdict, in which case a multiplier of up to twice the actual value of the time expended may be awarded in the discretion of the trial court.

(c) Punitive damages for a violation of paragraph (3)(b) may be sought against a person subject to other requirements and limitations of law, including, but not limited to, part II of chapter 768 and case law.

My thoughts? Ok, but within reason...like is the drone looking directly in windows, etc.? But if people expect this law to fly, then dont expect planes flying aerial photography missions with large format, high resolution cameras to divert around the same property, otherwise be prepared to also prohibit all aerials from being taken while high up over said private property. It is the same thing as photographing someone’s home from the street or by using a pole mounted camera or even a selfie stick from anpublic location adjacent to private property.

Check this one out - it will not hold up in the Supreme Court either: New Florida Law Prohibits Drone Pictures on Private Property

How would the US Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to review a case involving this particular state law?

 

[Thomas B]

That depends entirely on state law. For example, Florida law provides:

A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone.

The remedies for violation are as follows:

REMEDIES FOR VIOLATION.—

(b) The owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property may initiate a civil action for compensatory damages for violations of this section and may seek injunctive relief to prevent future violations of this section against a person, state agency, or political subdivision that violates paragraph (3)(b). In such action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees from the nonprevailing party based on the actual and reasonable time expended by his or her attorney billed at an appropriate hourly rate and, in cases in which the payment of such a fee is contingent on the outcome, without a multiplier, unless the action is tried to verdict, in which case a multiplier of up to twice the actual value of the time expended may be awarded in the discretion of the trial court.

(c) Punitive damages for a violation of paragraph (3)(b) may be sought against a person subject to other requirements and limitations of law, including, but not limited to, part II of chapter 768 and case law.



How would the US Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to review a case involving this particular state law?

Having been there on abnondrone issue. After being heard by the state Supreme Court, if a party to the suit/case wants to press it they would look for some aspect of the law/ ruling that would involve/contradict a federal statute and pres that issue. If they prevailed the state law would be overcome, and might never deal with the state’s issue directly. Yes it happens.

That said, it is very expensive and unlikely. This was simply to answer the question at the end of your post. Not to argue.