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 ****** 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:
Aeroplanes, when passing, must keep to the right, and pass at a distance of at least 150 feet. They are free from this rule when flying at altitudes of more than 100feet. Every machine when flying at night or during foggy weather must carry a green light on the right, and a red light on the left, and a white headlight on the front.
These are sensible rules, but may be improved upon by the addition of a signal system of some kind, either horn, whistle or bell.
Responsibility of Aviators.
Mr. Jay Carver Bossard, in recent numbers of _Fly_, brings out some curious and interesting legal points in connection with aviation, among which are the following:
"Private parties who possess aerial craft, and desire to operate the same in aerial territory other than their own, must obtain from land owners special permission to do so, such permission to be granted only by agreement, founded upon a valid consideration. Otherwise, passing over another's land will in each instance amount to a trespass.
"Leaving this highly technical side of the question, let us turn to another view: the criminal and tort liability of owners and operators to airship passengers. If A invites B to make an ascension with him in his machine, and B, knowing that A is merely an enthusiastic ******* and far from being an expert, accepts and is through A's innocent negligence injured, he has no grounds for recovery. But if A contracts with B, to transport him from one place to another, for a consideration, and B is injured by the poor piloting of A, A would be liable to B for damages which would result.
Now in order to safeguard such people as B, curious to the point of recklessness, the law will have to require all airship operators to have a license, and to secure this license airship pilots will have to meet certain requirements. Here again is a question. Who is going to say whether an applicant is competent to pilot a balloon or airship?
Fine for an Aeronaut.
"An aeroplane while maneuvering is suddenly caught by a treacherous gale and swept to the ground. A crowd of people hasten over to see if the aeronaut is injured, and in doing so trample over Tax-payer Smith's garden, much to the detriment of his growing vegetables and flowers. Who is liable for the damages? Queer as it may seem, a case very similar to this was decided in 1823, in the New York supreme court, and it was held that the aeronaut was liable upon the following grounds:
