Last month Tilting discussed whether Daisy Duke and her Uncle Jesse faced civil or criminal liability for shooting down Boss Hogg’s drone trespassing over their property. To recap: Daisy Duke was sunbathing by her Uncle Jesse’s pool when a drone owned by Boss Hogg began hovering over the pool area. Daisy freaked out, and Uncle Jesse shot the drone out of the sky. Later he learned that Boss Hogg took photos of Daisy. This month Tilting considers whether Boss Hogg is liable to the Dukes for trespassing and invasion of privacy.
Does flying a drone over someone’s property constitute trespassing?
Yes. Trespassing can occur in two ways: (1) a person physically enters another person’s land without permission; or (2) a person causes an object to enter another person’s land without permission. The fact that the drone is in the airspace above the property, and not on the ground, does not matter because the property owner owns a reasonable amount of airspace above the property. Drone operators are likely adhering to FAA guidelines that recommend flying a drone less than 400 feet off the ground. In effect, the FAA claims the airspace over 400 feet. Understandably the property owner claims the airspace under 400 feet. Thus, flying a drone invades that airspace, and constitutes a trespass.
What about Invasion of Privacy?
A party may have an invasion of privacy claim for “nonphysical invasions” such as spying or wiretapping. For example, setting up a video camera in someone’s bedroom is an invasion of privacy. The plaintiff must prove that the invasion of privacy was something that would severely offend, humiliate or outrage the ordinary person. Using a drone to photograph or videotape someone in their backyard will likely meet this standard.
Does a drone owner face civil liability?
Yes in two ways. Boss Hogg may be liable for trespass or invasion of privacy under common law. If the drone typically flies over the property for a short period of time, and the property owner does not usually incur any costs to remove the drone, damages are likely limited to mental anguish.
The Dukes also have a claim under a new statute passed by the Texas Legislature two years ago. The law creates a private cause of action against the drone owner or user for using a drone to capture an image of the property owner (or tenant) or their property and allows the property owner to recover $5,000 for all of the images captured during each trespass, or $10,000 if the drone owner/operator discloses, displays or distributes the images. Another benefit to property owners is that they can recover court costs and attorney’s fees, which would not otherwise be recoverable. Boss Hogg will find himself in big trouble for violating this new law.
There is potential criminal liability as well. The new Texas law adds misdemeanor offenses for the drone owner/operator who uses a drone to photograph or video another person or privately owned property.
Tilting the Scales in Your Favor
If you operate your drone responsibly you should avoid any potential legal crashes. It is best to make sure that if you fly your drone off your property, you fly it over public property or have the other property owner’s permission to fly on their land. Similarly, you should not take any photographs or video on private property without a person’s or property owner’s permission.