This is a private runway that is shared by 5 or more homeowners. A homeowner near the end of the runway, for some reason, planted trees right on the end of the runway but on his property. They are now about 20 to 30 feet tall and growing quickly.
The runway had previously gone thru his property for another several hundred feet. He closed that portion. There was no easement for that portion.

I know there will be comments on how to cut down the trees, etc. I would like to know from our many legal minds as to what this man's liability is should someone hit his trees and become injured or worse. His planting of these 3 or 4 tall trees appears to be a deliberate act against the runway. Our state has the waiver of liability for airport owners. Since the runway no longer goes thru his property, he is not protected by this waiver.

Would survivors of an accident be able to win a lawsuit against him? How would his insurance company feel about the trees and his liability?

What do you think?


flyer

One copper nail per tree will solve rapid growth and very hard to find.

Has anyone asked nicely about permission to trim the trees back a bit?

Gump

Gump

Thanks. I am new to this situation. I agree that a friendly cooperative attitude toward him would be the first thing to do.

I think, though, since he planted the trees there on purpose to inhibit aircraft, it would not be logical to expect him to allow the trees to be trimmed. I do not yet know what provoked him into being against the runway.

The interesting thing is that he was a pilot and had used the runway. He is older now and something or someone has caused this problem.

I understand that it is his property and he should have the right to do what he wishes with it. He has, however, deliberately caused a runway hazard that could cost injuries or lives. I do not think AOPA nor the FAA can be of much help.

I would like to know if he has caused himself to be endanger of losing lawsuits after the fact.

Thanks


flyer

Sounds like the nieghbor planted a tree like a cotton wood. They do grow tall and very fast!

Owyheeflyer wrote:One copper nail per tree will solve rapid growth and very hard to find.

+1.......................

Or a dose of Round Up around the base of the trees at 2 AM....

Seems like I recall something about if an airstrip is recognized by the FAA then it's approaches are protected to the point they were when the owner registered the runway. I can't remember for sure where I read this but I think it was on BCP so it may or may not be true. If the airport isn't registered with the FAA then it doesn't matter.

I have no idea about the liability part. Hope everything works out.

Why not go talk to him and try to find out what the history of this situation is? Seems to me that would be the first thing to do. And, of course, done respectfully, etc. If he's a pilot, he certainly understands the ramifications of planting those trees, and if he closed the portion of the runway that crosses his land, there's probably some history there as well. Makes me suspect that he's afraid of liability, or???

I seriously doubt that he will have any liability if someone hits the trees. The trees would be a known obstacle that any pilot should be well aware of if taking off in that direction. There's a similar situation going on at a public airport in MN right now, where a landowner off the end of the runway has large trees that are growing into the approach path, and they refuse to cut them. In that case, the runway simply gets shorter.......and there's really nothing anyone can do about this situation, apparently. Nobody can BUILD something that protrudes into the approach path, but trees apparently are a somewhat different deal.

I'd see what his point of view is first, non threatening, of course, and go from there.

MTV

The only way a copper nail will kill a tree is if it is large enough to split the trunk and then driven down into the root. The man is the key and his story wants to be told. Especially if he planted trees on purpose to foil the runway. It shouldn't be too hard to get him to talk about it. He might even think you give a damn so what's to lose with some hangar talk and stories of the old days when he liked flying and chose to locate there. Might be he still has a soft spot for flying, just not for some of the pilots in the area.

dirtstrip wrote:The only way a copper nail will kill a tree is if it is large enough to split the trunk and then driven down into the root. The man is the key and his story wants to be told. Especially if he planted trees on purpose to foil the runway. It shouldn't be too hard to get him to talk about it. He might even think you give a damn so what's to lose with some hangar talk and stories of the old days when he liked flying and chose to locate there. Might be he still has a soft spot for flying, just not for some of the pilots in the area.

Finding the cause of the problem is the best way for sure!!
1 nail won't do it, takes a few, look up copper sulfate, it will kill it in a year!
Quicker way is just ring the bark all the way around the tree, does not take long and you can do it in the dark!!

Have run into the we'll plant the trees to make it a dangerous runway!!

GT

Would he sell some of the land?

Good luck on the liability end, realistically of there were an accident I think he would be able to sue the pilot for damage to his property! The landowner should have no responsibility to the airport especially if he has withdrawn from its usage and has closed the property to a/c.

Snail

I assume you have a very excellent legal background and understanding of the law.

The airport property owners, because of the new law, are exempt from liability due to accidents. The man that is no longer an airport property owner is not exempt from liability.

Worst case scenario. A family takes off toward the trees. Maybe it is very hot, maybe he has some sort of engine problem that slows his acceleration. In either case he does a high speed abort or lifts off but cannot outclimb the trees. He hits them at high speed and burns. The plane is on this man's property.

The survivors, though badly burned will be approached by attorneys. They will point out to the jury that this man deliberately planted these trees to cause a hazard for the airport. He was a pilot and knew the probable consequences. After seeing the pictures of the burned children, etc. do you not think the jury would find for them?

If you were his insurance company, what would you advise him to do?

Does this make any sense?

flyer

If:
Ask nicely, & say pretty please to trim them. Offer to pay for Davies Arborist (or whoever is in your area) to trim the trees. If he says no thank him for his time & leave quietly.

Then:
+2 for a gallon of Roundup for some fertilization of airports at 02:00 on a dark black night.

Gooood Luck

IMO
Would survivors of an accident be able to win a lawsuit against him? NO
How would his insurance company feel about the trees and his liability? They are OK


If he planted them he had a reason. If he is old and is not thinking clear you may be able to buy or lease the land. You may be able to buy the trees for fire wood. I believe a property owner ultimately has the right to do what he wants with HIS property. All county's have zoning laws. If planting trees is legal, IMO the airport has no standing.

I have been told many times, if a guys is rich enough to have his own airport he is rich enough to buy a helicopter, Super Cub, Maule, and Porter.

Land towards the trees, take off away from the trees.

G'Day

Snail

I assume you have a very excellent legal background and understanding of the law.

The airport property owners, because of the new law, are exempt from liability due to accidents. The man that is no longer an airport property owner is not exempt from liability.

That is ok to protect you as the airport owner from other users who you have premised as public use, or specific permission use depending on the status of your strip public/private. This is very similar to most recreational use clauses. It takes the known risk of such activity and brings it back to the participant.

Your neighbor who is not part of the airport community would not be involved in that liability as he is not an owner of the airstrip. He has given nobody permission to use his property. Once you enter his land you are trespassing.

Worst case scenario. A family takes off toward the trees. Maybe it is very hot, maybe he has some sort of engine problem that slows his acceleration. In either case he does a high speed abort or lifts off but cannot outclimb the trees. He hits them at high speed and burns. The plane is on this man's property.

The survivors, though badly burned will be approached by attorneys. They will point out to the jury that this man deliberately planted these trees to cause a hazard for the airport. He was a pilot and knew the probable consequences. After seeing the pictures of the burned children, etc. do you not think the jury would find for them?

Whether or not the man deliberately planted the trees doesn't matter ....it's his property and he has the ability to do so. These trees should be marked in the AFD as a hazard of use of the runway. Should a pilot have an accident by taking off too short a strip, too heavy, or having an engine problem and hitting these trees, your neighbor would not be liable. In fact the pilot of the aircraft could be liable for damage to his land and any cleanup costs that are involved.

Should the FAA have requested that he cut down the trees as a matter of safety perhaps you would then have a case of negligence.

So yes somebody might be able to sue your neighbor (Heck this is 'Merica anyone can sue anyone) I think the countersuit for damage would have a lot better chance....

Rob

Are you inferring that old people do not think clearly. I resemble that remark.

What are ya gonna do with kids?

flyer

I have seen that before. Someone looses medical, etc and/or turns into airplane haters. I would never be part of an airport community where the entire runway isn't owned by the group. Taking ten back yards and then making a joint runway is bad news.

If these trees are getting too big, why not make turning climb outs directly over this house?

This issue has legal precedent at the federal level, and the landowner prevailed. You need to acquire an easement so that you may legally trim or remove the trees. In particular, see paragraphs 12 and 13.

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/76/76.F3d.42.90.95-7096.95-7010.95-7440.198.html

kevbert wrote:This issue has legal precedent at the federal level, and the landowner prevailed. You need to acquire an easement so that you may legally trim or remove the trees. In particular, see paragraphs 12 and 13.

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/76/76.F3d.42.90.95-7096.95-7010.95-7440.198.html

That Round Up idea is looking better and better.. ..


And , Remember,, if the glove don't fit, you must acquit....