flying machines-第19章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



〃right　of　eminent　domain〃　is　accorded　only　to　corporations

which　are　engaged　in　serving　the　public。　Individuals

cannot　take　advantage　of　it。　Thus　far　all　aviation

has　been　conducted　by　individuals；　there　are　no　flying

machine　or　airship　corporations　regularly　engaged　in　the

transportation　of　passengers；　mails　or　freight。



This　leads　up　to　the　question　〃What　would　happen　if

realty　owners　generally；　or　in　any　considerable　numbers。

should　prohibit　the　navigation　of　the　air　above　their

holdings？〃　It　is　idle　to　say　such　a　possibility　is　ridiculous

it　is　already　an　actuality　in　a　few　individual　instances。



One　property　owner　in　New　Jersey；　a　justice　of　the

peace；　maintains　a　large　sign　on　the　roof　of　his　house

warning　aviators　that　they　must　not　trespass　upon　his

domain。　That　he　is　acting　well　within　his　rights　in　doing

this　is　conceded　by　legal　authorities。



Hard　to　Catch　Offenders。



But；　suppose　the　alleged　trespass　is　committed；　what

is　the　property　owner　going　to　do　about　it？　He　must

first　catch　the　trespasser　and　this　would　be　a　pretty　hard

job。　He　certainly　could　not　overtake　him；　unless　he

kept　a　racing　aeroplane　for　this　special　purpose。　It

would　be　equally　difficult　to　indentify　the　offender　after

the　offense　had　been　committed；　even　if　he　were　located；

as　aeroplanes　carry　no　license　numbers。



Allowing　that　the　offender　should　be　caught　the　only

recourse　of　the　realty　owner　is　an　action　for　damages。

He　may　prevent　the　commission　of　the　offense　by　force

if　necessary；　but　after　it　is　committed　he　can　only　sue

for　damages。　And　in　doing　this　he　would　have　a　lot　of

trouble。



Points　to　Be　Proven。



One　of　the　first　things　the　plaintiff　would　be　called

upon　to　prove　would　be　the　elevation　of　the　machine。

If　it　were　reasonably　close　to　the　ground　there　would；

of　course；　be　grave　risk　of　damage　to　fences；　shrubbery；

and　other　property；　and　the　court　would　be　justified　in

holding　it　to　be　a　nuisance　that　should　be　suppressed。



If；　on　the　other　hand；　the　machine　was　well　up　in　the

air；　but　going　slowly；　or　hovering　over　the　plaintiff's

property；　the　court　might　be　inclined　to　rule　that　it

could　not　possibly　be　a　nuisance；　but　right　here　the　court

would　be　in　serious　embarrassment。　By　deciding　that

it　was　not　a　nuisance　he　would　virtually　override　the

law　against　invasion　of　a　man's　property　without　his

consent　regardless　of　the　nature　of　the　invasion。　By

the　same　decision　he　would　also　say　in　effect　that；　if　one

flying　machine　could　do　this　a　dozen　or　more　would

have　equal　right　to　do　the　same　thing。　While　one　machine

hovering　over　a　certain　piece　of　property　may　be

no　actual　nuisance　a　dozen　or　more　in　the　same　position

could　hardly　be　excused。



Difficult　to　Fix　Damages。



Such　a　condition　would　tend　to　greatly　increase　the

risk　of　accident；　either　through　collision；　or　by　the

carelessness

of　the　aviators　in　dropping　articles　which　might

cause　damages　to　the　people　or　property　below。　In

such　a　case　it　would　undoubtedly　be　a　nuisance；　and

in　addition　to　a　fine；　the　offender　would　also　be　liable

for　the　damages。



Taking　it　for　granted　that　no　actual　damage　is　done；

and　the　owner　merely　sues　on　account　of　the　invasion

of　his　property；　how　is　the　amount　of　compensation　to

be　fixed　upon？　The　owner　has　lost　nothing；　no　part　of

his　possessions　has　been　taken　away；　nothing　has　been

injured　or　destroyed；　everything　is　left　in　exactly　the

same　condition　as　before　the　invasion。　And　yet；　if　the

law　is　strictly　interpreted；　the　offender　is　liable。



Right　of　Way　for　Airships。



Somebody　has　suggested　the　organization　of　flying…

machine　corporations　as　common　carriers；　which　would

give　them　the　right　of　eminent　domain　with　power　to

condemn　a　right　of　way。　But　what　would　they　condemn？

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　making　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　100

feet。　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

amateur　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：

'To　render　one　man　liable　in　trespass　for　the　acts　of

others；　it　must　appear　either　that　they　acted　in　concert；

or　that　the　act　of　the　one；　ordinarily　and　naturally　produced

the　acts　of　the　others；　Ascending　in　a　balloon　is

not　an　unlawful　act；　but　it　is　certain　that　the　aeronaut

has　no　control　over　its　motion　horizontally；　but　is　at

the　sport　of　the　wind；　and　is　to　descend　when　and　how

he　can。　His　reaching　the　earth　is　a　matter　of　hazard。

If　his　descent　would　according　to　the　circumstances

draw　a　crowd　of　people　around　him；　either　out　of　curiosity；

or　for　the　purpose　of　rescuing　him　from　a　perilous

situation；　all　this　he　ought　to　have　foreseen；　and　must　be

responsible　for。'



Air　Not　Really　Free。



〃The　general　belief　among　people　is；　that　the　air　is

free。　Not　only　free　to　breathe　and　enjoy；　but　free　to

travel　in；　and　that　no　one　has　any　definite　jurisdiction

over；　or　in　any　part　of　it。　Now　suppose　this　were　made　a

legal　doctrine。　Would　a　murder　perpetrated　above　the

clouds　have　to　go　unpunished？　Undoubtedly。　For　felonies

committed　upon　the　high　seas　ample　provision　is

made　for　their　punishment；　but　new　provisions　will　have

to　be　made　for　crimes　committed　in　the　air。



Relations　of　Owner　and　Employee。



〃It　is　a　general　rule　of　law　that　a　master　is　bound　to

provide　reasonably　safe　tools；　appliances　and　machines

for　his　servant。　How　this　rule　is　going　to　be　applied

in　cases　of　aeroplanes；　remains　to　be　seen。　The　aeroplane

owner　who　hires　a　professional　aeronaut；　that　is；

one　who　has　qualified　as　an　expert；　owes　him　very　little

legal　duty　to　supply　him　with　a　perfect　aeroplane。　The

expert　is　supposed　to　know　as　much　regarding　the　machine

as　the　owner；　if　not　more；　and　his　acceptance　of

his　position　relieves　the　owner　from　liability。　When

the　owner　hires　an　amateur　aeronaut　to　run　the　aeroplane；　and

teaches　him　how　to　manipulate　it；　even　though

the　prescribed　manner　of　manipulation　will　make　flight

safe；　nevertheless　if　the　machine　is　visibly　defective；　or

known　to　be　so；　any　injury　which　results　to　the　aeronaut

the　owner　is　liable　for。



As　to　Aeroplane　Contracts。



〃At　the　present　time　there　are　many　orders　being

placed　with　aeroplane　manufacturing　companies。　There

are　some　unique　questions　to　be　raised　here　under　the

law　of　contract。　It　is　an　elementary　principle　of　law

that　no　one　can　be　compelled　to　complete　a　contract

which　in　itself　is　impossible　to　perform。　For　instance；

a　contract　to　row　a　boat　across　the　Atlantic　in　two

weeks；　for　a　consideration；　could　never　be　enforced　because

it　is　within　judicial　knowledge　that　such　an　undertaking

is　beyond　human　power。　Again；　contracts　formed

for　the　doing　of　acts　contrary　to　nature　are　never

enforcible；　and　here　is　where　our　difficulty　comes　in。　Is

it　possible　to　build　a　machine　or　species　of　craft　which

will　transport　a　person　or　goods　through　the　air？　The

courts　know　that　balloons　are　practical；　that　is；　they

know　that　a　bag　filled　with　gas　has　a　lifting　power　and

can　move　through　the　air　at　an　appreciable　height。

Therefore；　a　contract　to　transport　a　person　in　such　manner

is　a　good　contract；　and　the　conditions　being　favorable

could　undoubtedly　be　enforced。　But　the　passengers'

right　of　action　for　injury　would　be　very　limited。



No　Redress　for　Purchasers。



〃In　the　case　of　giving　warranties　on　aeroplanes；　we

have　yet　to　see　just　what　a　court　is　going　to　say。　It　is

easy　e