## Facts

- Plaintiffs owned and possessed approximately 72.5 acres of land in Burbank, California.
- Plaintiffs claimed ownership of the “stratum of air-space” above their land up to at least 150 feet, as airspace they could reasonably expect to use or occupy.
- Plaintiffs alleged that, beginning around May 1929, defendant airlines repeatedly flew aircraft across and through that airspace at altitudes below 100 feet.
- Plaintiffs alleged they gave notice to defendants to stop the alleged intrusions, but defendants continued and threatened to continue the flights.
- Plaintiffs sought an injunction barring flights through the claimed airspace and monetary damages against each airline based on a continuing trespass theory grounded in the ad coelum maxim.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner has a property right in low-altitude airspace such that aircraft passage through that airspace, without more, constitutes trespass.
2. Whether the pleadings stated a basis for injunctive relief or damages based on alleged overflights.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaints.
- The court declined to apply the ad coelum maxim literally and held that a landowner’s airspace rights extend only to airspace reasonably capable of use or occupation in connection with the land.
- The complaints failed because they did not allege actual and substantial interference with plaintiffs’ possession and use of the land or actual, concrete damage attributable to the flights.
- Without such allegations, plaintiffs did not state a claim supporting either an injunction or damages for trespass.

## Legal Principles

- The ad coelum doctrine is not a literal rule of airspace ownership; airspace rights are limited to what a landowner can reasonably use and occupy as part of the land’s enjoyment.
- Passage of aircraft through airspace above land is not actionable trespass absent intrusion into airspace tied to the owner’s reasonable use and occupation, together with material interference or actual damage.
- Injunctive relief for overflights requires well-pleaded facts showing actual and substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the land; abstract claims of dominion over an unused column of air are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court held that landowners do not possess absolute ownership of all air above their land; instead, protectable rights reach only as far as reasonable use and occupation. Because the pleadings alleged low overflights but not substantial interference or actual damage, dismissal was affirmed.


Hinman v. Pac. Air Transp., 84 F.2d 755 (9th Cir. 1936)