Airspace and Subterranean

Question 1

Kelsen

Answer 1

overhanging sign, maxim “up to heavens”, trespass.

Question 2

Berstein v Sky Views

Answer 2

Plane/photos. Limit on the maxim to “only as high as reasonably necessary for ordinary use/ enjoyment of land” and no one has any more rights than the ordinary public above that. Aircraft did not trespass.

Question 3

Hashem

Answer 3

Public/private nuisance (not trespass) for towers put on an existing easement. Other pilots could still use, test for nusiance is objective not subjective. Previous flying doesnt create highways in the sky.

Question 4

AG Manitoba v Campbell

Answer 4

Nuisance if not necessary for ordinary use. (metal finger). Airspace rights are mitigated by public needs. Not a balance of genuine competing interests here.

Question 5

Lewvest

Answer 5

(1981) Didnt want tall building nearby, can protect airspace rights even for poor motives. Low, fixed, overhanging crane trespasses. Uses kelsen maxim but not bernstein.

Question 6

Woollerton

Answer 6

(1969 england) Crane swings over plf factory and street. Plf wants more money than was offerred. Trespass but no injunction until tower is supposed to be done. No precedent set against property rights but dealt with poor motives. (weird because issued a license without damages)

Question 7

Edwards v sims

Answer 7

Trespass if cave goes under land even if no access because land owner has property rights below surface. Maxim applies underground. Dissent: not trespass unless they can make use/enjoyment if the land, or if they can bring it under dominion (create and entrance etc. ) cant reap what you havent sown.

Question 8

Hammonds

Answer 8

Natural gas pumped underground. Not trespassing because things that move around belong to public (ferae naturae)