United States v.

Causby
328 U.S. 256
Eminent Domain Navigable Airspace
FACTS:
Respondent Thomas Lee Causby owned a property, wherein he resided and invested in a
chicken farm, near a municipal airport in Greensboro, North Carolina. The airport was used
regularly by the United States military. The safe path of glide to one of the runways of the
airport passed directly over respondents' property at 83 feet, which was 67 feet above the house,
63 feet above the barn and 18 feet above the highest tree. It was used 4% of the time in taking off
and 7% of the time in landing. The Government leased the use of the airport for a term of one
month commencing June 1, 1942, with a provision for renewals until June 30, 1967, or six
months after the end of the national emergency, whichever was earlier. Various military aircraft
of the United States used the airport. They frequently came so close to respondents' property
that they barely missed the tops of trees, the noise was startling, and the glare from their landing
lights lighted the place up brightly at night. This destroyed the use of the property as a chicken
farm, according to Causby, noise from the airport regularly frightened the animals on his farm,
resulting in the deaths of several chickens. The problem became so severe that Causby was
forced to abandon his business. Furthermore, respondent also claim that it caused loss of sleep,
nervousness, and fright on the part of respondents. Under an ancient doctrine of the common
law, land ownership extended to the space above and below the earth. Using this doctrine as a
basis, Causby sued the United States, arguing that he owned the airspace above his farm. By
flying planes in this airspace, he argued, the government had confiscated his property without
compensation. The United States Court of Claims accepted Causby's argument, and ordered the
government to pay compensation.
ISSUES:
Whether respondents chicken farm had been taken without compensation
HELD:
YES. Yes. But the case is remanded for a determination of the value of the easement and
whether the easement was permanent or temporary.
The court noted the common law doctrine of ownership of land extending to the sky above the
land. However, the court notes that an act of Congress had given the United States exclusive
national sovereignty over the air space. The court noted that common sense made the common
law doctrine inapplicable.

Prepared by: Juan Samuel Ismael Loyola

However, the court found that the common law doctrine did not control the present case. The
United States had conceded in oral argument that if flights over the Respondents property
rendered it uninhabitable then there would be a taking compensable under the Fifth
Amendment. The measure of the value of the property taken is the owners loss, not the takers
gain.
The airspace is a public highway. But it is obvious that if the landowner is to have the full
enjoyment of his land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the
enveloping atmosphere. If this were not true then landowners could not build buildings, plant
trees or run fences.
The airspace, apart from the immediate reaches above the land, is part of the public domain.
The court does not set the precise limits of the line of demarcation. Flights over private land are
not a taking, unless, like here, they are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate
interference with the enjoyment of the land. The Court of Claims must, upon remand, determine
the value of the easement and whether it is a temporary or permanent easement.
General Rule
The airspace is a public highway,
Exception
But if the landowner is to have the full enjoyment of his land, he must have exclusive control
over the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.

Prepared by: Juan Samuel Ismael Loyola