## Facts

- Donald Geller owned a lot in Chicago and was constructing a three-story residence.
- The Brownstone Condominium Association owned the adjoining high-rise immediately to the south; the building’s north wall sat on the property line.
- Geller alleged the association had used, and would continue to use, temporary scaffolding attached to or supported by its north wall that extended into the airspace above his property.
- Geller claimed the overhanging scaffolding constituted a continuing trespass of his air rights and interfered with his “light and air.”
- In a separate count, Geller alleged potential defects or negligent construction, use, or maintenance of the scaffolding could cause the scaffolding or objects on it to fall, risking injury or property damage.
- Geller sought a permanent injunction barring scaffolding that extended over his property and sought damages.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that temporary scaffolding extended into the airspace above the plaintiff’s land, without specific facts of present interference, stated a claim for trespass/air-rights encroachment.
2. Whether allegations of possible future defects or negligent use of scaffolding, without present injury or a конкретely pleaded dangerous condition, stated a claim for negligence.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed dismissal of the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The court held the trespass/air-rights allegations were conclusory and did not plead actual, present, substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the land.
- The court held the negligence allegations were speculative, resting on hypothetical future harm without pleaded facts of a current negligent act, present hazard, or actual damage.

## Legal Principles

- A landowner’s protectable interest in airspace is limited to the extent reasonably necessary for the owner’s use and enjoyment of the land.
- An intrusion into airspace is actionable as trespass only when it occurs at a height and in a manner that substantially interferes with the landowner’s actual use and enjoyment.
- Conclusory assertions of interference with “light and air,” without concrete facts showing present impairment of use, are insufficient to plead an air-rights trespass.
- Negligence requires pleaded facts supporting duty, breach, causation, and damages; allegations based solely on speculative future injury do not state a claim.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because the complaint alleged only an overhead scaffolding extension and speculative risks, without facts showing present, substantial interference with land use or a presently actionable negligent condition causing injury or damage.


Geller v. Brownstone Condo. Ass’n, 402 N.E.2d 807 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)