Rob L
01-08-2016, 12:14 PM
I see this case in the US where a neighbour shot down a drone: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/07/drone_lawsuit_who_owns_the_skies/
It looks like a test case, and the outcome might affect new drone owners.
In the UK, we have case law about "who owns the skies" or more accurately: at what height do users of the sky breach "reasonable" expectation of privacy above a property.
As for the height above ground at which an aircraft would be trespassing, the
answer is: at or below such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and
enjoyment of the land and structures upon it (Mr Justice Griffiths so decided in
Bernstein v Skyviews 1978). An aircraft flown below a "reasonable height" loses
the statutory immunity from actions for trespass and nuisance. Mixing theory
with practice, a flight which busts the 500 foot rule might well give rise to a
nuisance claim from, for example, the owner of a startled animal.
A landowner owns the airspace above his land and may bring an action for trespass
against an intruder or where another places an object which projects into their
airspace. However this right is not unlimited.
Source: http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Land/Rights-above-and-below-surface.php
What is the case in America? is there a "privacy" law, that expects others to keep drones reasonably away from your neighbours? Or is this case the first of its kind?
Rob
It looks like a test case, and the outcome might affect new drone owners.
In the UK, we have case law about "who owns the skies" or more accurately: at what height do users of the sky breach "reasonable" expectation of privacy above a property.
As for the height above ground at which an aircraft would be trespassing, the
answer is: at or below such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and
enjoyment of the land and structures upon it (Mr Justice Griffiths so decided in
Bernstein v Skyviews 1978). An aircraft flown below a "reasonable height" loses
the statutory immunity from actions for trespass and nuisance. Mixing theory
with practice, a flight which busts the 500 foot rule might well give rise to a
nuisance claim from, for example, the owner of a startled animal.
A landowner owns the airspace above his land and may bring an action for trespass
against an intruder or where another places an object which projects into their
airspace. However this right is not unlimited.
Source: http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Land/Rights-above-and-below-surface.php
What is the case in America? is there a "privacy" law, that expects others to keep drones reasonably away from your neighbours? Or is this case the first of its kind?
Rob