7/31/2019 Property - 34 - US v Causby

1/2

Property 34

US v Causby (1946)

Facts

The Causbys owned 2.8 acres of land near an airport outside Greensboro,North Carolina. There was a house and some buildings for raising chickens onthe property.

One of the airport's runways is 2220 feet from the Causbys' barn and 2275feet from their house (i.e., NEAR). Airplanes - mostly US Air Force war planes -gliding to the runway would pass directly over the property and cause greatnoise during the day and bright glare (from aircraft lights) during the night.

As a result, the Causbys had to give up their chicken raising business because

the noise and glare were making the chickens panic and fly into the walls,causing their deaths. Ultimately, the number of planes flying over the propertydestroyed its capacity to be used as a commercial chicken farm. The Causbysthemselves were frequently deprived of sleep.

The Court of Claims held that there was an unlawful taking of property inviolation of the 5th amendment ("...nor shall private property be taken forpublic use, without just compensation") and ruled in favor of the Causbyfamily.

The US contended that there is no taking of property when flights are made

within navigable airspace without physical invasion of private property belowsuch airspace.

IssueIn flying its planes over the Causby property, did the US commit unlawfultaking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment?

Held

Yes, there was unlawful taking of property.

Although airspace is considered a public highway, the landowner must haveexclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere if heis to have full enjoyment of the land.

There is a common law principle dictating that ownership of the land extendsto the rest of the "universe" around it. This means that whoever owns a pieceof land would own the air above it as well. The Court held that such a doctrine

7/31/2019 Property - 34 - US v Causby

2/2

no longer has any place in the modern world, because Congress had declaredthat the air is a public highway. IF the common law doctrine were still in effect,all flights would be subject to countless trespass suits.

However, this general principle does not apply to the current case. The US

conceded that if flights over the Causbys' property rendered it uninhabitable,there would be taking in violation of the 5th amendment. The owner's loss isthe measure of the value of the property taken, not the taker's gain.

It does not matter that the planes never touched the land itself, becauseconstant flights had already destroyed the Causbys' right to possess andexploit the land as its beneficial owners. Use of airspace above the Causby'sland effectively limited its utility and caused a dimunition of its value.

While the owner does not physically occupy the airspace, he uses it in a waysimilar to spaces left between buildings for the purposes of light and air. Since

the planes fly so low to the ground, continuous invasion of the airspace hasaffected the use of the land.

Airspace, apart from immediate reaches above the land, remains publicdomain. Flights over private land do not constitute a taking of property, so

long as they do not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the land.