Flying Machines: Construction and Operation / A Practical Book Which Shows, in Illustrations, Working Plans and Text, How to Build and Navigate the Modern Airship

by William J. Jackman; Octave Chanute; Thomas Herbert Russell

One of the first things the plaintiff would be called upon to prove would be the elevation of the machine. If it were reasonably close to the ground there would, of course, be grave risk of damage to fences, shrubbery, and other property, and the court would be justified in holding it to be a nuisance that should be suppressed.

If, on the other hand; the machine was well up in the air, but going slowly, or hovering over the plaintiff's property, the court might be inclined to rule that it could not possibly be a nuisance, but right here the court would be in serious embarrassment. By deciding that it was not a nuisance he would virtually override the law against invasion of a man's property without his consent regardless of the nature of the invasion. By the same decision he would also say in effect that, if one flying machine could do this a dozen or more would have equal right to do the same thing. While one machine hovering over a certain piece of property may be no actual nuisance a dozen or more in the same position could hardly be excused.

Difficult to Fix Damages.

Such a condition would tend to greatly increase the risk of accident, either through collision, or by the carelessness of the aviators in dropping articles which might cause damages to the people or property below. In such a case it would undoubtedly be a nuisance, and in addition to a fine, the offender would also be liable for the damages.

Taking it for granted that no actual damage is done, and the owner merely sues on account of the invasion of his property, how is the amount of compensation to be fixed upon? The owner has lost nothing; no part of his possessions has been taken away; nothing has been injured or destroyed; everything is left in exactly the same condition as before the invasion. And yet, if the law is strictly interpreted, the offender is liable.

Right of Way for Airships.

Somebody has suggested the organization of flying-machine corporations as common carriers, which would give them the right of eminent domain with power to condemn a right of way. But what would they condemn? There is nothing tangible in the air. Railways in condemning a right of way specify tangible property (realty) within certain limits. How would an aviator designate any particular right of way through the air a certain number of feet in width, and a certain distance from the ground?

And yet, should the higher courts hold to the letter of the law and decide that aviators have no right to navigate their craft over private property, something will have to be done to get them out of the dilemma, as aviation is too far advanced to be discarded. Fortunately there is little prospect of any widespread antagonism among property owners so long as aviators refrain from making nuisances of themselves.

Possible Solution Offered.

One possible solution is offered and that is to confine the path of airships to the public highways so that nobody's property rights would be invaded. In addition, as a matter of promoting safety for both operators and those who may happen to be beneath the airships as they pass over a course, adoption of the French rules are suggested. These are as follows: