Can You Be Sued for Flying a Drone Over Private Property?

Minolta201 · Mar 19, 2019

The draft of the proposed tort law relating to drones, due to be discussed by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) soon, is out – and drone operators should be paying very close attention. The ULC is proposing a tort law relating to drones, which would give homeowners the right to sue drone operators for flying over their private property under certain conditions.

The ULC carries a lot of weight and should be taken seriously. You can read about it here:

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

The draft of the proposed tort law relating to drones, due to be discussed by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) soon, is out – and drone operators should be paying very close attention. What is Tort Law, and Who is the ULC? The definition of “Tort,” according to the Cornell Legal Information...

dronelife.com

Ansia · Mar 19, 2019

To me they sound paranoid and do not understand what the average consumer drone is capable of. Even if it passes, it will be overturned. Any airspace over any property does not belont to the property owner, but rather to the NAS, which is controlled by the Ferderal Aviation Administration. Making a law like this is completely illegal and those lawmakers should know this.

HiloHawaiian · Mar 19, 2019

Ansia said:
To me they sound paranoid and do not understand what the average consumer drone is capable of. Even if it passes, it will be overturned. Any airspace over any property does not belont to the property owner, but rather to the NAS, which is controlled by the Ferderal Aviation Administration. Making a law like this is completely illegal and those lawmakers should know this.

That’s my understanding as well. In my battles in Hawaii to keep tourist helicopters from flying over 12 hrs/7dy I was told the FAA controls 25’ and above. I’ve never read/ heard that anywhere else, and this FAA inspector might have just been sick of all the complaints and tried to be a heavy, I dunno. One thing is certain, the FAA does rule the sky above private property. The question is — when does your ownership end and there’s begin?

Ansia · Mar 19, 2019

HiloHawaiian said:
That’s my understanding as well. In my battles in Hawaii to keep tourist helicopters from flying over 12 hrs/7dy I was told the FAA controls 25’ and above. I’ve never read/ heard that anywhere else, and this FAA inspector might have just been sick of all the complaints and tried to be a heavy, I dunno. One thing is certain, the FAA does rule the sky above private property. The question is — when does your ownership end and there’s begin?

From when I spoke with the FAA, basically if it flies, it's under their jurisdiction. I have never heard the 25' rule.

Ansia · Mar 19, 2019

I do find the second draft to be fair IMHO.

SECTION 5: AIRSPACE INTRUSIONS.
(a) An aerial trespass occurs when a person intentionally and without consent of the landowner operates an unmanned aircraft in the airspace over the landowner’s property and by so doing causes substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the property.
(b) The determination of whether an unmanned aircraft’s operation over property has caused substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of property shall be based upon a review of the totality of the circumstances, including:
(1) The amount of time the unmanned aircraft was operated over the landowner’s property;
(2) The altitude at which the unmanned aircraft was operating;
(3) The number of times unmanned aircraft have been operated over the property;
(4) Whether the unmanned aircraft recorded or captured audio, video or photographs while in operation over the property;
(5) Whether the landowner has regularly allowed operation of unmanned aircraft over the property;
(6) Whether the operation of the unmanned aircraft caused physical damage to persons or property;
(7) Whether the operation of the unmanned aircraft caused economic damage;
(8) The time of day the unmanned aircraft was operated over the landowner’s property;
(9) Whether an individual on the land saw or heard the unmanned aircraft while it was over the property; and,
(10) The operator’s purpose in operating the unmanned aircraft over the property.
(c) Repeated or continual operation of an unmanned aircraft over a landowner’s property shall not give rise to prescriptive rights in the airspace
Definition of “Intrusions on Land”:
SECTION 6: INTRUSIONS ON LAND.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who, without permission, intentionally lands an unmanned aircraft on the land of another, or who intentionally causes an unmanned aircraft to come into physical contact with a structure, plant life, or individual on the land of another, commits a trespass to land.
(b) A trespass to land does not occur under subsection (a) when:
(1) the unmanned aircraft operator is forced to land the unmanned aircraft because of unexpected circumstances that reasonably justify such a landing; or,
(2) the unmanned aircraft malfunctions or otherwise touches down upon the surface of the land because of weather or other factors beyond the operator’s control.
(c) A person asserting the privileges provided in subsection (b) is liable for any damage caused by the unmanned aircraft’s operation.
(d) Regardless of how an unmanned aircraft came to rest upon the property of another, the owner or operator of the unmanned aircraft has a right to recover the unmanned aircraft upon a request to the owner of such property. A landowner shall not unreasonably refuse a request to return the unmanned aircraft or to permit the unmanned aircraft’s operator to recover the unmanned aircraft from the property.
Definition of “Violations of Privacy”:
SECTION 8: UNMANNED AIRCRAFT AND VIOLATIONS OF PRIVACY.
(a) Privacy related civil actions may be based upon the operation of an unmanned aircraft.
(b) A determination of whether an unmanned aircraft’s operation over property was used to violate a privacy-related right shall be based upon a review of the totality of the circumstances, including:
(1) Whether by hovering or repeated flights the unmanned aircraft was likely to have provided the operator with the opportunity to use the unmanned aircraft to view, listen to, record or capture by camera, microphone or other device, individuals who were present at that place and time; and,
(2) Whether the operator made statements or took other overt actions indicating a desire to use an unmanned aircraft to infringe upon rights of privacy recognized in this state.

Jagerbomb52 · Mar 19, 2019

United States v. Causby, 328 US 256 - Supreme Court 1946 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Ansia · Mar 19, 2019

Agustine said:
United States v. Causby, 328 US 256 - Supreme Court 1946 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Being a millenial, I gave up half way through the read. So Causby got screwed, because the NAS belongs to United States of America and not Mr Causby, correct?

Jagerbomb52 · Mar 19, 2019

Ansia · Mar 19, 2019

Agustine said:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Wild Wild West! Yeeeehaaawwww! ???

On a serious note, it has been already regulated. Give me a few days to get the info. Don't know when will it come into effect though.

thomasr · Mar 20, 2019

Agustine said:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Judge to FAA rep on stand: Would you like to clear this up?

FAA: Nope.

The funniest quagmire I've seen to date -- even though it's a TV show -- It is so lifelike...

HiloHawaiian · Mar 20, 2019

thomasr said:
Judge to FAA rep on stand: Would you like to clear this up?

FAA: Nope.

The funniest quagmire I've seen to date -- even though it's a TV show -- It is so lifelike...

That is a riot! Wait for public input? LOL That’s the hilarious part for me. They love holding public input meetings in Hawaii, since the district office is in LA. They bring the family, stay the week, have a great time. All they have to do is look concerned, be non-committal and polite for a few hours, then off to the beach!

Ansia · Mar 20, 2019

HiloHawaiian said:
That is a riot! Wait for public input? LOL That’s the hilarious part for me. They love holding public input meetings in Hawaii, since the district office is in LA. The bring the family, stay the week, have a great time. All they have to do is look concerned, be non-committal and polite for a few hours, then off to the beach!

Where and how can I get this job!?

xspwhite · Mar 20, 2019

You guys have to remember, "the good wife" is just a silly TV sitcom. Class G airspace exists wherever Class A, B, C, D or E airspace doesn't. Practically, it starts at the surface and extends up until it hits Class E airspace. The FAA has authority over every inch above the tip of your grass blades and is responsible for the safety and management of all U.S. airspace from the ground up. If what was acted out on that show was true; that the FAA doesn't control up to the 500 feet or whatever, then we would no longer have to register our drones or worry about obtaining a part 107. Maybe it's the privacy part they dont wont to deal with, but again, what kind of laws do we have to stop helicopters and other aircraft from taking photos/videos?

thomasr · Mar 20, 2019

xspwhite said:
You guys have to remember, "the good wife" is just a silly TV sitcom. Class G airspace exists wherever Class A, B, C, D or E airspace doesn't. Practically, it starts at the surface and extends up until it hits Class E airspace. The FAA has authority over every inch above the tip of your grass blades and is responsible for the safety and management of all U.S. airspace from the ground up. If what was acted out on that show was true; that the FAA doesn't control up to the 500 feet or whatever, then we would no longer have to register our drones or worry about obtaining a part 107. Maybe it's the privacy part they dont wont to deal with, but again, what kind of laws do we have to stop helicopters and other aircraft from taking photos/videos?

I think part of this 500 feet thinking has to do with the capability of older radar.

You are monitoring air traffic as best you can, so your radar was installed to do just that -- mainly look at towards the sky. This or any technology like it, will always have "blind-spots". In this case, you are looking upward more -- so your blind spot is going to be towards the ground.

Just reference back to 9-11 and see how that plane slammed the Pentagon -- they took advantage of not being able to be seen on radar -- so low to the ground. (Among other things)

Our government would like us to think they can see everything (and true, with drones and such they can), but there are limitations to technology -- which in my opinion -- has people thinking this 500 feet non-sense.

Depending on your location, your airport may have all the fancy new radar equipment, or still be putting by on something from 20 years ago.But that doesn't mean they can't call in mobile radar equipment to monitor all air-space -- if needed.

It is just a matter of where you point it as to what you will see or not see.

Edit: Link added of FAA upgrades to Asheville, NC radar.