Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Facts: Pacific Air Transport and United Air Lines Transport Corporation (airlines) (defendants) operated airplanes that regularly flew over property owned by Hinman (plaintiff). Hinman brought suit against each airline for trespass, alleging that he had title to the airspace above his property of a height ranging from at least 150 feet to an indefinite distance, and that the airplanes had flown less than 100 feet above his property. Hinman sought an injunction preventing the airplanes from flying over his property, in addition to $90,000 in damages from each airline. Procedural History: The district court sustained D’s motion to dismiss. Issue: Does a landowner’s ownership of the space above their land extend upward infinitely, such that an airplane’s flight over the land constitutes a trespass? Holding: No. Judgment affirmed. Reasoning: The ad coelum doctrine, which grants property rights “from the center of the earth to the sky,” is not and never has been the law. The doctrine is a figurative phrase that has never been taken literally, and was invented when the space above land was confined to narrow limits. The doctrine’s true meaning is that a landowner may use overlying space to the extent to which he is able, and that no one may interfere with his use. The landowner has the right to the superjacent airspace necessary or convenient to his enjoyment of the land. A literal construction of the doctrine would create an absurd result because the sky has no definite location, and ownership of infinity is impossible. A remedy in equity cannot prevent the violation of an abstract conception. There is no precedent to support Hinman’s assertion of title to airspace of an indefinite height. Property must, by its nature, be capable of exclusive possession. Like the ocean, air cannot be privately owned unless it is being put to a specific use. A landowner may own only the airspace used, and only for so long as it is used. A landowner may seek a remedy for trespass if others use the airspace in a manner that injures the land or actually interferes with the landowner’s possession or beneficial use of the land. However, the law does not protect a contemplated, future use of airspace, because doing so would lead to confusion over how to protect various claims to the sky. In this case, Hinman is not entitled to an injunction, because he has offered no facts regarding his use of the property that would allow the court to conclude he has suffered actual or substantial damage. Hinman only alleges that the airplanes flew in close proximity to his property, and not that the airplanes interfered with any particular use of the land. A plaintiff may normally be entitled to nominal damages for trespass without proving or alleging actual damage. However, Hinman is not entitled to nominal damages, because the airlines have not committed a trespass.