ATKINSON v. Bernard, Inc.
355 P.2d 229, 1960 Ore. LEXIS 576, 223 Or. 624 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legal action seeking to enjoin airport operations due to low-altitude overflights should be analyzed as a nuisance claim, requiring a balancing of the landowners' property rights against the public interest in air travel, rather than as a strict trespass claim.
Facts:
- In 1918, a small airport (the Airport) began operations.
- Sometime after 1948, a residential area known as Cedar Hills was developed directly north of the Airport.
- The plaintiffs purchased homes in Cedar Hills, with the nearest homes located approximately 1,000 feet from the runway.
- Planes taking off from the Airport, particularly during fair weather, frequently flew over the plaintiffs' homes at low altitudes, allegedly creating significant noise and vibrations.
- These flights, often occurring on Sunday mornings, substantially interfered with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property.
- Over a period of 30 years, four planes using the airport had crashed, two of which were near the plaintiffs' properties, causing the plaintiffs to fear for their safety.
Procedural Posture:
- Sixty-eight property owners (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in the circuit court against the operator of a small airport (the Airport).
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop all flights from taking off to the north over their homes.
- The trial judge viewed the property and a demonstration of several flights.
- The circuit court issued a decree enjoining flights by aircraft that made 'appreciably more noise' than a specific 1954 Piper Tri-Pacer airplane.
- The Airport appealed to this court (as appellant), arguing the decree was too vague to enforce.
- The plaintiffs cross-appealed (as appellees), arguing that all take-offs over their land should be enjoined.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should a lawsuit to enjoin low-altitude flights over private property be treated as a claim for trespass, or should it be analyzed under nuisance law, which requires balancing the competing interests of the landowners and the airport?
Opinions:
Majority - Goodwin, J.
No, such a suit should be analyzed under nuisance law. Lawsuits seeking to enjoin airport operations due to low-altitude overflights must be treated as actions for the abatement of a nuisance, not trespass. The trespass doctrine is too rigid for modern aviation issues. The more flexible nuisance framework allows a court to balance the competing private interests of the landowners and the airport, as well as the public interests in both protecting property rights and fostering air travel. The trial court's injunction was based on a subjective standard and is therefore unenforceable. The case must be remanded for the collection of objective acoustical data, such as decibel readings, to form the basis of a new, precise decree that defines what level of noise constitutes an unreasonable interference.
Analysis:
This decision officially shifts the legal framework in Oregon for airport overflight cases from the traditional, rigid doctrine of trespass to the more flexible, modern doctrine of nuisance. By doing so, the court allows for a balancing of interests, including the public's interest in aviation, and opens the door for defenses like "coming to the nuisance," which the trial court had excluded. This ruling establishes a new precedent requiring that injunctions in noise pollution cases be based on objective, scientific standards, such as decibel readings, rather than subjective comparisons. This requirement for empirical evidence significantly impacts how future nuisance cases involving complex technical issues are litigated and resolved.
Unlock the full brief for ATKINSON v. Bernard, Inc.