First Reported Determination In Massachusetts On Personal Nuisance and Para-Hold Gliding
Just lately, I filed a really attention-grabbing and novel case involving personal nuisance and paragliders which resulted in a positive injunction ruling for my consumer. My shoppers have a gorgeous dwelling on Peaked Cliff within the Sagamore Highlands space of Plymouth/Bourne, overlooking Cape Cod Bay offering breathtaking views of ocean and cliffs. The house has a big again deck overlooking the ocean which the household makes use of steadily to benefit from the views and ocean.
With its excessive thermal wind exercise, the realm has turn into a hotbed for hang-gliders and para-gliders. Sadly, the gliders, most of whom are members of the New England Paragliding and Hold Gliding Membership, have turn into more and more reckless and belligerent. They’ve flown inside toes of my shoppers’ dwelling yelling and screaming obscenities and giving obscene finger gestures. On a number of cases, the gliders have crash landed on the grounds, and not less than one glider crashed into the roof. One glider virtually died when he crashed straight on the cliff, necessitating an advanced rescue operation. My shoppers daughters have complained that gliders have taken images of them via their bed room home windows and whereas lounging on the deck.
After many complaints and the issuance of no-trespass notices, the Membership tried to impose a “No-Fly” zone over my consumer’s dwelling. Nonetheless, it wasn’t enforced and the gliders saved harassing my shoppers, usually beginning flights at 6AM working via sundown. My consumer had sufficient, and requested me to file a lawsuit for personal nuisance and trespass in Brockton Superior Court docket. We requested the Court docket to situation an injunction imposing a 150 foot no-fly zone round my consumer’s property.
A personal nuisance happens when somebody “creates, permits or maintains a situation or exercise on property that causes a considerable and unreasonable interference with the use and delight of the property of one other.” That is the primary case that I’m conscious of in Massachusetts whether or not paragliding and hang-gliding could rise to the extent of personal nuisance. Decide Thomas F. McGuire, Jr. held an in-person evidentiary listening to, which was truly my first in-person listening to since Covid-19 hit. I put collectively a video montage of images and video footage of the offending glider exercise and confirmed that to the Decide. I additionally cross-examined a consultant of the Membership who conceded that their no-fly zone wouldn’t considerably impede glider flights within the space.
The Court docket issued a well-reasoned written opinion (embedded beneath) granting an injunction prohibiting all paraglider and hang-glider flights over my consumer’s property and increasing thirty toes exterior their property line. Notably, the decide discovered that the Membership itself had documented the gliders’ problematic exercise of their inner assembly minutes (which we discovered on-line). The decide dominated that the gliding exercise rose to the extent of being a personal nuisance, and that my shoppers would undergo irreparable hurt in the event that they weren’t enjoined from flying over and close to their home. The decide imposed a 30 foot no-fly zone round my consumer’s property. We’re hopeful that this can hold the peace, however the order is enforceable with contempt powers, because the decide made clear in his ruling.
As I stated earlier than, this ruling is notable as a result of it’s the primary reported choice involving gliders and personal nuisance in Massachusetts. With the proliferation of drones and different low flying plane and units, this ruling ought to present some a lot wanted authorized precedent and steerage on this different conditions the place property rights battle with airspace rights. The case reference is Kaplan v. New England Paragliding and Hold Gliding Membership, et al., Plymouth Superior Court docket CA 2183CV0331.
Associated Posts
