Whether and to what extent Congress intended to preempt states, localities, and tribes from regulating drone operations at low altitudes;. What liability drone operators and the federal, state, local, and tribal governments may have to landowners under state aerial trespass and constitutional takings law precedents for conducting, regulating, or preempting state regulation of drone operations in low-altitude airspace, and whether landowners may exclude drones from their overlying airspace; and.
Whether existing federal and state privacy laws adequately protect against invasions of physical privacy and personal data privacy involving drone operations and what authority the federal, state, local, and tribal governments have to enact additional measures that may be needed. In sum, the legal and regulatory landscape for the operation of commercial and recreational drones is far from settled. Drone manufacturers and other stakeholders, including retailers of consumer products, foods, and healthcare products, need to monitor court decisions and the patchwork of laws and regulations at the local, state, and federal levels.
See more ». This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies. Who Owns And Controls the Sky? Al Windham. To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:.
The Court reasoned: We have said that the airspace is a public highway. He was the owner of the property "all the way to heaven and all the way to hell. This "heaven to hell" doctrine was adopted by most American states, which gave landowners rights to everything below and above their property, period.
At least one state, Montana, retains this view, though its validity is questionable: "The owner…has the right to the surface and to everything permanently situated beneath or above it. Code Sec. Literally applied, the English rule could result in a landowner refusing to allow an airplane to enter its airspace as long as the plane stayed below heaven. The absurdity of this result was rejected in a U. Supreme Court case, U. Causby, U. The Causbys were chicken farmers whose farm was in the glide path of military aircraft approaching a nearby airport.
The planes came within eighty-three feet of the ground, and the terrified the chickens stopped laying; many died while running from the noise. The Causbys were forced to abandon their business, and sued the government for trespassing and then essentially taking their property — their airspace — without compensating them. Had the court been willing to apply the "heaven to hell" theory, the Causbys would have won easily. Actually, they did win, but made some important law in the process.
The Court ruled that the landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land. Causby at p. Everything above was navigable air space, available to the public. The Court didn't announce a precise altitude after which landowners lost their rights.
Instead, they offered two general guidelines that would be applied in each case:. Applying these guidelines to the Causby situation, the Court ruled that the airplanes, at 83 feet above the ground, were interfering with airspace that belonged to the farmers.
Both sides have legitimate interest for safety and privacy and they are both closely monitoring the drone industry. We have all seen drones flying in many locations, and often even being piloted by our neighbors. Is it okay for your neighbor to fly over your house at 50 feet? These questions will have to be resolved by the courts as more and more disputes arise.
The drone industry continues to develop drone technology at lightning speed. Drone technology has huge potential and we can expect to see drones becoming more of an integral part of everyday life.
Clarity on control and ownership will come from a collaboration of efforts from lawmakers, the public, and drone users working together to keep people safe while enabling this technology to reach its full potential. Moving forward, keep an eye on your local lawmakers. This state of legal contradiction is likely to be ultimately challenged at the Supreme Court level to establish precedent.
Hopefully, the courts will establish legislation that allows us to continue flying and be able to use our drones wherever safe and responsible, for both commercial and recreational purposes.
Contact us anytime at , or info aerotas. Why Aerotas.
0コメント