United States v. Causby
First aviation case to be decided by US Supreme Court – case of first impression
Continuous stream of 4-engine bombers spaced a minute or two apart roared over the Causby’s property day and night
Landing approach brought them as low as 30 feet over the Causbys’ rooftop
At night the landing lights illuminated the Causbys’ bedroom brighter than day
Causbys’ were farmer of chickens in North Carolina
Brain of chicken is programmed to react to anything flying overhead
Chickens flew into frenzy at the noise and 150 of them crashed around in their coops
Judges having no precedent referred back to centuries-old facet of common law – ad coelum (to the sky) doctrine (cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum), which states that a person who owns a
parcel of land owns not only the surface but also the airspace above it
Relying upon the commerce clause and Congress’s pronouncements in the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 (precursor to Federal Aviation Act of 1958), the Court held that navigable airspace is a public
highway within the public domain and that at least as it would affect the passage of aircraft, the ad coelom doctrine has no place in the modern world
But in this situation, the flights by aircraft owned and operated by the federal government were “so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of
the land” and the value of the land was diminished as a result – so the Court held that these air operations constituted a taking of private property (in the nature of an aviation easement) for a
public use so that the Constitution required the federal government to pay the landowner just compensation for that taking
In an ordinary condemnation action, the government initiates suit to take property and determine price
Here in Causby the farmers initiated suit thus making it an inverse condemnation suit
CASE BRIEF
Petitioner: United States
Respondent: Thomas Lee Causby et al.
Citation: 328 US 256 (1946)
Facts of the Case: Thomas Lee Causby owned a chicken farm outside of Greensboro, North Carolina. The farm was located near an airport used regularly by
the United States military. According to Causby, noise from the airport regularly frightened the animals on his farm, resulting in the deaths of several chickens. The problem became so severe that
Causby was forced to abandon his business. Under an ancient doctrine of the common law, land ownership extended to the space above and below the earth. Using this doctrine as a basis, Causby sued the
United States, arguing that he owned the airspace above his farm. By flying planes in this airspace, he argued, the government had confiscated his property without compensation, thus violating the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The United States Court of Claims accepted Causby's argument, and ordered the government to pay compensation.
Issue: Did the flying of planes by the United States military over Causby's farm constitute a violation of the Takings
Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Reasoning: Yes, to an extent. In a 5-2 opinion authored by Justice William O. Douglas, the Court concluded that the
ancient common law doctrine "has no place in the modern world." Justice Douglas noted that, were the Court to accept the doctrine as valid, "every transcontinental flight would subject the operator
to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea." However, while the Court rejected the unlimited reach above and below the earth described in the common law doctrine, it also ruled
that, "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere." Without defining a specific limit, the Court
stated that flights over the land could be considered a violation of the Takings Clause if they led to "a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land." Given the damage
caused by the particularly low, frequent flights over his farm, the Court determined that the government had violated Causby's rights, and he was entitled to compensation. (Chief Justice Harlan Fiske
Stone died on April 22; Justice Robert H. Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision in the case, leaving the court with 7 members.)
Griggs v. Allegheny County
Griggs’ home near Greater Pittsburgh Airport
County extended one of the runways almost to Griggs’ property line so that airliners on approach to landing passed as low as 11 feet over Griggs’ chimney
Noise and vibration caused plaster walls and ceilings to crack and items to fall off shelves and china cabinets
The Griggs filed an inverse condemnation suit
Like in Causby, the court held that the county, as operator of this public airport, had taken an aviation easement over the Griggs’ property through inverse condemnation requiring the county to
pay compensation for the taking, measured by the appraised fair market value of the property before and after the runway extension
Additionally, airlines that were actually generating the noise had NO LIABILITY to landowners
- Police Power
Pacific Northwest – Seattle-Tacoma – new regional airport to be built
To avoid inverse condemnation suits – legislature drafted statute authorizing the airport to include an elaborate recital creating the airport under the police power in the interest of public
welfare
BUT
Adjacent landowner filed suit – court held that although building a public use airport is certainly a proper exercise of police power, if the effect is to take private property rights for a public
use, that exercise of police power is also an exercise of power of eminent domain so governmental entity owner must pay just compensation
Riverside, California
County was building a new general aviation airport - Ryan Field
In the exercise of its police power the county adopted height zoning restrictions that applied to property near each end of the runway to prevent landowners from building obstructions into the
landing glide path
Maximum heights permitted proceeded outward and upward in a stair step fashion – only very low structures were permitted close to the runway and progressively higher structures permitted farther
away
Sneed v. County of Riverside
Sneed owned 234 acres immediately adjacent to the runway threshold
Under the new height zoning ordinance, the tallest structure that could be built on that portion of his property farthest from the runway end was 24 feet and at the closest end a mere 3 inches
Although the zoning was a valid and permissible exercise of the police power at least in Sneed’s case, the height zoning ordinance also constituted a taking of his private property for a public
use through the power of eminent domain requiring the county to pay him just compensation
Santa Barbara, California
Smith v. Santa Barbara County
Smith owned land in residentially zoned subdivision
County government wishing to build an airline airport nearby used its police power to enact a new land use zoning ordinance governing the uses to which property in the vicinity of the new airport
could be put
Smith’s land was thus rezoned to industrial use
Smith sued
Court found that the ordinance was a valid exercise of county’s police power and did not involve the power of eminent domain so county was not liable to pay compensation
Land use zoning is now a very popular tool used nationwide in new airport planning
In the planning process airport planners predict the airport’s noise footprint, as it will fall on surrounding land
Sound level measurement method used today – DNL (Day-Night Sound Level) – developed by the
US Environmental Protection Agency to permit comparison of noise levels from all types of urban sources - measures ambient noise including aircraft noise and imposes penalty for night time
(10pm to 7am) operations – generally accepted that 65 DNLs or higher
is incompatible with noise-sensitive land uses (homes, schools, churches, hospitals)
Humans perceive an increase of 10 decibels as a doubling of the noise level
Use zoning is a two-edged sword that may be used not only to protect airports from the encroachment of noise sensitive residential communities but also to protect residential communities from the
encroachment of noisy airports
Garden State Farms, Inc., New Jersey
Garden State Farms, Inc. v. Bay
Court held that state and local governments might also exercise their police power to protect the public health, safety and welfare by land use zoning to exclude aircraft landing areas
Injunctions for nuisance
Sometimes residents who are annoyed by the proximity of an airport seek to obtain an injunction from a court to declare the operation of the airport a nuisance and order it to cease operation
Nuisance: intentional tort – generally a continuing one rather than an isolated incident – private nuisance is a non-trespassory interference with an individual plaintiff’s use or enjoyment of his
property
If a court finds an activity a nuisance the option is either to award the plaintiff money damages or to issue an injunction prohibiting continuation of the activity that constitutes the
nuisance
American law – mostly follows law of England
At time of Declaration of Independence – England had 2 separate sets of courts each with its own body of laws and powers:
- Courts of Law – judges trained in common law applied the law – entered judgments for money damages
- Courts of Chancery – judges selected for Solomonic wisdom “did equity” meaning issued orders that simply seemed fair – entered orders for people to do or refrain from doing something
US law today combines the two – as a general rule though courts consider equitable remedies (like injunctions) to be extraordinary remedies that should be awarded only if there is no adequate
remedy at law
Loma Portal Civic Club v. American Airlines
No court has ever enjoined the operation of a publicly owned airport in the US
Privately owned airports however have not been so lucky – some have been found to be nuisances and have been enjoined against continuing operations
The Power to Tax
Local governments have also effectively used their power to impose taxes on real property to force out private airports – while the airport will still have grandfather rights to continue
operation, as a nonconforming use despite the rezoning, property taxes will increase dramatically
Noise ordinances
The onset of a nationwide epidemic of aircraft noise related litigation was triggered by the introduction into airline service of the first generation of jets:
- Boeing 707
- Douglas DC-8
- Convair 880
These aircraft were far noisier than the propeller-driven aircraft before them or even the later jets after them
Allegheny Airlines v. Village of Cedarhurst
In response to citizen rage over the new noise level the village government adopted a municipal ordinance that prohibited flying over the village at less than 1000 feet AGL
FAA mandated flights over the village below 1000 feet AGL in direct conflict with the ordinance – Federal law preempts the ordinance due to Supremacy Clause so municipal ordinance was rendered
unenforceable
Airlines v. Town of Hempstead
The court found that the ordinance, as applied against aircraft, was in direct conflict with the federal regulatory scheme – supremacy clause would prohibit the town from enforcing a noise
ordinance against aircraft
Parachutes, Inc. v. Township of Lakewood
Federal government exercised little control over the flight pattern \s of these aircraft - no control tower at airport – only contact these aircraft had with ATC was to report to NY Center 1
minute before each jump and then later when last jumper had landed
Court found that the enforcement of the township’s ordinance against the aircraft did not conflict with any regulatory scheme, so the supremacy clause did not come into play – so enforcement
against these aircraft legally valid
Print 