Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport
84 F.2d 755 (1936)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's property rights in the superjacent airspace are limited to the portion they can reasonably occupy or use in connection with the land. An aircraft's flight over private property does not constitute a trespass unless it results in actual and substantial injury to the landowner's possession or beneficial use of the land.
Facts:
- Appellants own a 72.5-acre tract of real property in Burbank, California, and claim ownership of the airspace above it to an altitude of at least 150 feet.
- Appellees, Pacific Air Transport and United Air Lines Transport Corporation, are commercial airline companies.
- Beginning in May 1929, the appellees' aircraft daily and repeatedly flew through the airspace above the appellants' property.
- These flights occurred at altitudes below 100 feet, and sometimes as low as 5 feet above the surface at the edge of the property, following two well-defined flight paths for landing.
- Appellants notified the airlines to cease flying over their land.
- The airlines disregarded the notice and continued to operate their aircraft over the property, claiming a right to do so.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants filed suits against two separate airlines in the U.S. District Court, a federal trial court.
- The trial court sustained the defendants' motions to dismiss the original bills.
- Appellants filed amended bills of complaint.
- The trial court again sustained the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended bills for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The trial court entered decrees dismissing the appellants' lawsuits.
- Appellants, Hinman et al., appealed the dismissals to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an aircraft's flight through the airspace above a landowner's property, without causing actual and substantial damage, constitute a trespass for which injunctive relief or damages may be granted?
Opinions:
Majority - Haney, Circuit Judge
No. Traversing the airspace above a landowner's property is not a trespass in itself; it is a lawful act unless it is done under circumstances that cause actual and substantial injury to the landowner's possession and enjoyment of their land. The court rejected the ancient ad coelum doctrine ('from the center of the earth to the sky') as a figurative phrase that is unworkable in the modern era of aviation. Property rights in airspace are not absolute but are coextensive with the owner's needs and ability to use the space in connection with the enjoyment of the land. A landowner owns only as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or make use of. To establish a claim for trespass by flight, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating actual and substantial damage, not just naked conclusions of harm. Here, the appellants failed to allege any specific injury or interference with their use of the land, so they are not entitled to an injunction or more than nominal damages. Furthermore, the court held that an easement for air cannot be obtained by prescription, so appellants' fear of the airlines acquiring a permanent right to fly over their land was unfounded.
Dissenting - Mathews, Circuit Judge
Judge Mathews dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from traditional common law property principles, adapting the law to the realities of modern aviation. By rejecting a literal interpretation of the ad coelum doctrine, the court established a 'use and enjoyment' standard for airspace rights, effectively creating a public highway in the sky. This balancing act protects landowners from actual interference while preventing them from halting air travel by asserting absolute ownership of the airspace above them. The case set a crucial precedent for aviation law, influencing subsequent rulings and legislation by establishing that flights are not trespasses per se, but only when they directly and substantially harm the surface owner's property interests.
Unlock the full brief for Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport