I know allot of people disagree, but this is why we need some sort of loser pays laws, maybe based on the income level of the plaintiffs. This was a dumb case, and should have never wasted the amount of money it did.
This is an idea that sounds good but is actually terrible. It would be open season for rich people and corporations to bully ordinary people. File a suit that is a long shot, running up the attorney fees. Sure, the suit will likely fail, but can that ordinary person risk being ruined if it does not? And what about ordinary people genuinely wronged? Can they risk filing a lawsuit? This idea in reality is to block ordinary people from the legal system.
I grew up on a farm, and we knew people like these plantiffs. In our case they were former city dwellers who moved to their few acres of rural 'paradise'. But man were they the most annoying of neighbors. If one little thing upset their tranquility, their idealized or romanticized vision of what rural life was like, they would complain to high heaven.
Given the times that this case happened 2021. I think that’s what these people were. Now remote workers who moved from the city to a rural area and took their stupid city mentality (and most likely politics) with them.
Launching a hot air balloon is a very noisy proposition. The burner creates quite a roar. This noise will travel quite a distance in cool still eary morning conditions. If it happens regularly, reasonable close to your dwelling, it could be considered a nuisance. This case sounds like its a land usage issue rather than air space issue.
There's another quote from Sun Tzu that applies here: "Victorious commanders win first and then go to war; Defeated commanders go to war first and then seek to win" The idea being, before you do something risky like going to war (or going to court), you need to do a ton of work to secure the eventual victory before the first shot is even fired. The baloonist's attorney, with his hundreds of exhibits, won his case before he went to court. I'd bet the farm that the homeowners "problem" with their lawyer was that the lawyer told them there was no hope of victory. They went to court and tried to win a battle they'd already lost before the first piece of paperwork had been filed.
Or else he’s one of those attorneys that just realized he could soak the plaintiffs for a lot of billables. Hard to feel sorry for the plaintiff. I do feel sorry for the expense of the defendant.
I can't help but suspect the goal was just to cost the defendants as much money as possible. Why else start a fight you can't win and drag it out as long as possible? It's either stupidity or malice.
A few years back I was driving cross country and had stopped off the highway to get lunch. I heard a noise above me and looked up to see a bunch of hot air balloons that had just launched. It was an amazing sight, those brightly colored balloons drifting up with their flames and people waving to us below. I don't think that could ever get old.
Yeah, mass HAB launches are amazing. I was only lucky enough to witness 3 of them in my life (one from the actual launch site), but every-time I see a HAB those memories rush back.
To waste additional time/money and attorney fees? Leading to another countersuit to waste additional time/money and attorney fees? Maybe everyone can just walk away?
Forcing someone into a position of having to defend against vexatious lawsuits should be treated like any other form of financial abuse. Whenever one of these lawsuits gets tossed or is subject to summary judgement, courts should have the option of making the prevailing party financially whole.
This sounds like the plaintiffs were trying to bankrupt the balloon company by extending the case over and over. Their attorneys probably quit because they knew it was a losing proposition. But, the plaintiffs were being stubborn beyond reason, aka, being Karens. The balloon company should have countersued for attorney fees, at least. A judge might even have granted damages for harassment, as this wasn't the first time the plaintiffs have done this.
@@richlauethe original story and the NBC story made it quite clear this was the defendant’s business. You do grasp that one person can own and operate a business, right?🙄🤦🏾♀️
Everyone is different. A few years ago a chase car zoomed up our lane and asked permission for the balloon to land in a bare patch of our pumpkin field. We ran out to video the landing and then gave everyone an ornamental pumpkin to take home as a momento.
@@DKNguyen3.1415 yep. they grow with the Face or the decorative cuts already included. And also the Candle. so you just pick them from the Field and put them in your Window or wherever you want. no further work needed. Really popular, especially at the end of October.
I am a pilot and knew the outcome of this when you first described the story. The FAA controls the air over your property and as long as the pilot is following the FARs there is nothing the owner can do. There are also special considerations of landing an aircraft without and engine such as glider or balloon.
FAA regulations are largely about prohibitions, and I'm not aware of any definitive ruling saying those are the only possible prohibitions. The Causby ruling specifically found that the military flights constituted a taking, so I have to assume that at some point civilian flights would constitute a trespass. In that case I'm not sure that a state court isn't competent to make the ruling, and require compensation and possibly a valid injunction against future/further trespass.
As shown by the 737 max fiascoes, the FAA is desperately in need of being cleaned out. They are like a sewer line that’s backed up. Bragging that the FAA has control is hanging your hat on pathetic government officials.
The military flights in Causby were only 85’ above the ground (20’ above the highest structure on the property). The Court in Causby ruled the military flights were flying at altitudes below “navigable airspace,” which is not the case in this frivolous lawsuit. Today, in designated areas where the military regularly practices very low altitude flying, they are required to negotiate leases with property owners in order to do so legally.
This case reminds me of my neighbor that complained about me having a few chickens. She complained to the village board constantly. She would harass me in my yard saying she didn't want to see them. She couldn't articulate any harm they were causing her, no smells, no noise from them. Just the sight of them in town triggered her lol.
Sounds like a PSYCHO who's watched THE BIRDS while peering through the TORN CURTAIN of her REAR WINDOW, causing her to fly into a FRENZY. Sounds very Hitchcockian if you ask me.
The laws really need to be changed so that if you sue someone and lose you must cover the other parties attorney and court costs. Frivolous lawsuits would stop overnight.
Agreed, but scale it to _income._ Otherwise rich people could abuse this to deter people from bringing legitimate cases against them, by purposely overpaying their lawyers just to further turn the screws on the threat of financial ruin.
@@leyrua Rich people already abuse the system with their lawyers burying the opposition in paperwork and delays. It will stop the completely frivolous lawsuits that have no merit, just like the one that is the topic of the video. It should have never seen the light of day, especially naming the owner of a property over 3 miles away.
@@leyrua Here in Finland justice define reasonable attorney costs. You cannot charge anything. What is reasonable, that is case sensitive. If you crearly overpaying, you pay that part yourself, not loser of case.
not a shame, thats by design of the US for-profit legal system and people being screwed by such frivolous lawsuits (cost of the legal system in general) is a just reward for public ignorance and inaction concerning systemic failures. Here in the evil "socialist" first world the cost problem is pretty much always made part of the ruling and settlments ... with the loser usually made to pay the legal expenses of those in the right in a civil case. Also such a trivial case would never be able to accumulate such massive cost (around a million) here. Kinda hilarious how expensive it is to defend your rights in the US ... alltho not surprising given the healthcare is also insanely expensive for the most trivial stuff. Real shame in the US is citizens recognizing things are fd up and utterly outdated but still refusing to get their arse up for change.
In Australia, the people making the lawsuit pays if they lose. There is a big case at the moment regarding this. Look up the Ben Roberts-Smith Lawsuit Case. @@diedampfbrasse98
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the venn diagram between "people who will sue a hot air baloon for flying over their land" and "people attorneys don't want as their client" is indistinguishable from a circle.
I live in balloon country, they fly over quite a bit. Even had one land in the street. The way they could be a nuisance is if you like to lie naked in your backyard, or in your own bed with the windows wide open, or have backyard orgies. But you can usually hear a balloon coming a mile away, those burners are very loud.
@patonharrower3282 didn't come up. My guess is the plaintiffs, not even using a lawyer themselves, are relatively poor so any judgment would be unrecoverable.
@@Dan-cm9ow Steve mentioned at the beginning that the total legal fees were approaching $1,000,000 for the two sides combined. I’d be upset as the defendant if my attorney was racking up fees with 900+ exhibits when the plaintiff has no case
My thoughts exactly! lol If the biggest problem you have is hot air balloons occasionally flying over your 35 acre property, you need to find a hobby or something. Jeez!
This is a prime example of why a plaintiff bringing a lawsuit should automatically be liable for the defendant's legal costs and other losses if they lose the case. Anyone can sue you for any reason without substantive risk other than legal costs.
Hearing about the disappointment of not getting to actually go to trial just sent my mind to the twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one...
That they sued others for launching miles away proves their maliciousness and the utter absurdity of this complaint. I can very easily imagine their lawyers becoming fed up with them and fleeing.
most cases are wastes of time. but you have the right to have your day in court. it's also why we can't have punitive if someone files a dumb lawsuit. it's also why i think that every case should go to trial regardless of who is suing of what for. because that day in court should be guaranteed. even if the case is just stupid.
@@TheObsesedAnimeFreaksWhy should it be allowed to weaponize the court system with frivolous litigation without consequences? If you lose your case, you pay the other guys legal fees. That's only fair.
@@olesuhr727 it's not fair because you discourage legal remedy if you make force punitives on someone that legitimately has an issue with another party. right or wrong, you are telling them they should just minecraft them. you want people to use the court system, regardless of how stupid or BS the lawsuite is. there is an argument for a fair playing field maybe restricting resources to fair amounts but that's a different issue. no one should be punished for filing a court case, period.
A few years back, the city I live in was planning on building a multistory building in the landing zone of the local Naval Air Station, the Navy said "No." When the city considered pushing back, the Navy pointed out several neighborhoods that were built too close to the air station in the landing zone where they shouldn't be and asked the city if they were willing to pay the residents to move out and bulldoze the neighborhoods. We live close enough to get a very good view of F/A-18's coming in to land. No big deal. I love the sound of Freedom.
As cities tend to grow, airports that were once miles out of town, become surrounded by newly built subdivisions. That's when the complaints start by people who CHOSE to live where they are now. Unfortunately, some airports have been forced to close.
You mean like Toronto Pearson, Canada's busiest airport?? LOL. chosen in 1937-38 while it was near the town of Malton Ontario and the province's population was 3,637,000. The city of Toronto's population is just under that now..... and Ontario has a population just shy of 16 million. There was a movement a few years ago to shut down Pearson because it was "too noisy" for the houses built under the approach paths -some built 6 decades after the airport first opened.
*Steve, the hot air balloon case is finished (maybe), and you've gained a new friend in Robert the pilot and an attorney. I'd call that a good day indeed.*
Steve I belonged to a model airplane radio controlled club. The nabor did the same thing to us. And we were not flying over there property. Just close to it on the down leg turn. We had to install mufflers on our aircraft engines. The people said we were a noise pollution problem. We were flying from a abandoned air strip. We moved to the other end of the strip. Reguladed the flight paths to stay away from there property as far as possible. They still were not happy. I think they wonted a pay day.
I fly RC planes as well, at one of the fields by me had the same issue, the RC field is at a city park/lake long before there were houses built, several home owners complained to the city so new rules were put in place, one was you could not fly over their property (I believe nobody was), the second was you could not fly before 9am on Saturday and Sunday. That field is still going today.
Not only do the parties filing a frivolous lawsuit need to be held liable for the costs incurred by the counter party their lawyers should also be held liable.
Who was the plaintiffs’ attorney? And why didn’t the attorney tell them it was in the wrong (state vs Federal) court and tell them it wouldn’t “fly”? If this was the second case against hot balloons was this the same attorney? Apparently the attorney was looking at a meal wagon.
Very interesting that per the comments many viewers have experienced similar sightings of an aircraft of these types over their property. I have too. While living on acreage in a rural area near Sequoia National Park in Calif my wife and I were in our swimming pool and could hear someone yelling "Hello." We looked up and saw a hang glider not very far above the trees passing by. The fellow somehow kept on going and was soon out of sight. One day sometime later we noticed several hang gliders in a nearby field and assumed it was a routine landing zone. Was a fun experience and have talked about it for years. Good thing we were not skinny dipping at the time though!
Getting a settlement after preparing to go and fight the suit would be like constantly training for a boxing match and never getting to step in the ring and actually trying and see if you have the better skill set.
Apparently the mere existence of the balloons in the sky was the "nuisance" to the plaintiffs, seeing that they sued another balloon company launching from three miles away.
I seriously think we need to have a law like in the UK where if you file one of these lawsuits and you loose you automatically have to pay the defendants attorney fees because it's obvious that this couple has too much time & money.
I used to live right across the street from a field in Dayton, OH where they would launch balloons all the time. I don't know why it would upset anyone. On Saturday mornings they would launch 5 or so. The only thing bothersome was there would be a bunch of cars parked out there for a while. And it would be about as loud as a noisy truck going by when they took off. But no big deal. We had small kids at the time and it was fun to watch. Frankly, I'd like to live somewhere like that again where we could see people having so much fun and a thrill of a lifetime. I also hope to take a balloon ride myself someday.
9:30 1991 took my 8 year old niece to Canada on a road trip, no note from her Mom, no paperwork of any kind. Stopped and questioned getting back into the U.S. The next week we went down the west coast stopping at 3 state capitals, and arriving in Mexico. I had a note and her birth certificate in my position, I was prepared this time. Coming back into the U.S. from Mexico I was waiting for the border agent to question us. No questions - just a wave through and "Keep it moving." I know that feeling.
Really, people having this kind of temporary "custody" should always have some documents, just in case "something happens." Like you have to take the kid to the E.R., or a cop pulls you over to give you a ticket and gets all concerned about the kid in your car. But of course, few people think about the "what might happen" scenarios. Youth groups do have to think about it, though. In Girl Scouts, we always had to have permission slips signed by our parent or guardian for any activities outside our normal meetings. You give yourself a little bit of paperwork hassle up front, to save yourself a potential bigger hassle down the line.
Near the end of my career in the Marines, I was assigned to recruiting for officers. We had flight programs that were enticing, and to promote them, we had a leased small airplane and small two seater chopper. I got to fly both a fair amount and really enjoyed it. I can only imagine a hot air balloon, all the height and none of the noise and power. Thanks Steve!
The peace and quiet is what drew me to sailing. I had been a powerboater for about a decade when I sailed with a friend for the first time and then I was hooked.
It sounds like you may never have heard the burners on a hot air balloon. They aren't used constantly of course, but not all of the flight will be quiet. The plaintiffs sound unreasonable, but the sound of the burners during launching might be the (main) reason they spent so much.
I've seen a few videos of hot air balloons and heard the roar. It seems like lots of roar to get up and moving, and lots of quiet time once everything settles. I believe I'd really enjoy a ride in one.@@suedenim9208
@@suedenim9208 I have heard them. Its not bad and it isnt long. Where I live there is a small airport not far from me. I have noticed that they all pretty much go over the property as a landmark in order to turn and head the direction of the airport. Across from me is a small strip mall that has many sets of lights so at night they can really tell where they are. I cant imagine complaining about such a trivial thing.
Might be worth looking at Trent Palmer's case. He's followed FAA guidance on inspection passes for off field landings at a friend's property. Next door neighbour has then complained to the FAA and they're pinning him with a different section of their rules that basically outlaws inspection passes.
Ah yes, the old "I was just practicing emergency landing procedures" excuse when the FAA comes around about giving someone a buzz job. You might get away with it once if there was some reasonable possibility that there was a usable landing site in the vicinity. I doubt an RC field would pass, as it obviously didn't in the Trent case.
When we first moved into this rural area, balloons would frequently come over. This was a new development from a farm. We loved the balloons and the occasional landings. The lots varied from 2 to 9 acres. Unfortunately, they stopped because the area was no longer pasture.😢
I will say this, I lived on 25 acres just out of Hemit California and there were frequently hot air balloons flying in the vacinity. Now this happened as one was LANDING. We were inside the house, on 25 acres, and heard voices talking "just outside the window." It was frightening! Who is on our property? What are they talking about? What do they want? But it was this balloon floating by just a few feet above the house. They landed on the 25 acres and we were excited, because it was unusual and enertaning for us. But I do see how it could possibly be a real nuscence if it persisted....
I was once in a balloon club. Our pilots made every effort they could not to land on private land. One time a pilot did land on a field. Policy was if nobody was around the pilot would not unlock the gate and folks would have to lift the gondola over the fence. Our pilots had county maps with areas marked in red of people who had no liking for balloons.
I also have balloons over my house often. Once it was so close to my roof I was concerned about them. I asked if he needed help, he said "not yet" and I stayed with him. He landed in a field next to me. I never once considered getting mad at them. The balloon was having an issue. They do tours of the Las Vegas valley, they are out having a good time. It's Vegas ballon rides, they fly every morning if it's not too windy.
Your story show it’s all in the individual circumstances. If being that close was a consistent issue…etc etc. Then it would need to be dealt with in my opinion. I’m not slighting them in any way. Seeing the sky loaded up with them is quite majestic to me.
Just think how miserable that couple must be if a handful of balloon flights over their property disturbs them that much. And how rich they must be to drop $500k on a lawsuit and then go to trial without a lawyer. I get that you could be doing something private in your backyard and not want to get surprised by onlookers but I bet that most people would enjoy waving at the balloonists as they went buy and others would just ignore it.
I live in a town where we have an annual festival, centered around hot air balloons. I have not had the chance to go for a ride in one, but it is on my bucket list! It's a very cool sight to see, all those balloons launching!
No balloons. Just about our only excitement was the black helicopters flying over our secluded ranch house. The airbase was a little over 100 miles away and they used our 16 acre lake and 3 story house as a visual to turn around and go back. We bought the property for privacy but it did get a little dull.
Balloons fly over my house noon stop in the summertime. I don't mind since they're high up, but I would be incredibly frustrated if they were low to the ground, invading my privacy, especially if I had our house a huge lot to have said privacy.
This case raises questions in my mind as to the competence , and or, the ethics of the plaintiff's attorney for proceeding with this case in the first place.
Has Steve done a video about how attorneys can get out of cases like this one once they recognize the plantiffs are bonkers and it is frivolous? Im certain they cant just walk away because of ethics but....how do you get out of this if your clients turn out to be crazypants?
I’ll never understand people who are so selfish that they want to stop other people from having fun even when there is no unacceptable level of impact upon themselves. You hear all the time about waterfront property owners going after fisherman (maybe the only thing that makes less noise than ballooning) or hate the noise from the little league fields across the street from them. Plus there are the people who think the street parking in front of their house belongs to them and you can’t park there.
Maybe, and I’m just speculating here, when the plaintiff was a child, they once choked on a balloon and as a result, they now have an irrational fear of balloons.
Hot air balloons fly over our property quite regularly from a stately home about 2 miles away. It brings all the neighbours out to look at the fabulous sight of the burners lighting, they’re gone in about two minutes, annoying someone else. 😂
Isnt this legal malpractice on the part of the plaintiff's attorney? He wasted the plaintiff's and defendant's money in a lawsuit in a court that has no jurisdiction then didnt bother to show up. That has to be a disbarrable offense.
Except that's not what happened. The judge couldn't do the injunction, but still could give money. Also, you have a right to sue. You don't have a right to have a lawyer turn down your money just because you're being an ass.
@@lordgarion514 I'm not even convinced the case didn't have a valid and legitimate complaint. FAA regulations are largely about prohibitions, and I'm not aware of any definitive ruling saying those are the only possible prohibitions. The Causby ruling specifically found that the military flights constituted a taking, so I have to assume that at some point civilian flights would constitute a trespass. In that case I'm not sure that a state court isn't competent to make the ruling, and require compensation and possibly a valid injunction against future/further trespass.
@@suedenim9208Regulations can have the weight of law, without explicitly being a law. There just needs to be a law saying something like "the regulations of X must be followed or else bla bla bla". It keeps the law relatively simple, and lets the regulations be updated with a lot more agility.
Well one thing I've not yet heard of is some one piloting a hot air balloon under the Mighty Mac. And another little kid story when I was 12(I'm 70 now)I had the privilege to witness a B-58 Hustler fly supersonic over my mothers house @ 400 feet, I actually looked up into the bombay door and then it hit me the sonic boom it was deafening. My mom was in the WACS in WWII and she had the responsibility to go to this other ladies house with her aircraft identification book ,she got a new one every year and the last one had a B-58 Hustler drawing in it, well this other lady had a military constructed tower about 30 feet tall that they would pack a lunch and go there to do aircraft Identification for the Army Reserves.
It won't happen. It is illegal to fly under a bridge except in emergency or with special FAA approval. I don't know if that prohibition applies to the military. I don't believe bombers can fly supersonic with the bomb bay door open - for a couple of reasons.
I wonder what the lowest point the balloon was over the plaintiffs house/property. Also my wife and I would find it so cool to have hot air balloon fly over. This kind of reminds me of the corner crossing lawsuit, Makes me wounder what these people are doing that absolute privacy is necessary and worth 3yrs and $500k?
The only legitimate complaint I can think of is the sound of the burners. Their house might be just 60 from the road, but maybe it's also only a couple of hundred feet from the launching property, and perhaps not al that far from the actual launch site.
I found an article about the case published by the Frederick News Post. The plaintiffs sued a LOT of different people, including the balloon company owner's wife and father. They must have spent a lot on attorneys' fees!! “This is not ending here,” Maharaj (one of the plaintiffs) said, adding that there would be “ramifications for everyone.” Oh, dear! 😲
I know one can be sued for filing a vexatious suit; the fact that after three years, the plaintiff basically did nothing to argue their case says 100% the suit was meant only to harass, and was therefore entirely vexatious.
@@SeanBZA Is this the first time you've seen one of Steve's video and you have no clue about the requirements for a successful claim? If I have demonstrable damages as a result of driving my car through your living room have I got a valid reason to sue you and ask to be made whole?
The plaintiffs were previously involved in protracted lawsuit with their neighbors over the disputed ownership of five acres between their properties. I wonder if this is the incentive for the current lawsuit.
But sometimes people find such frivolous lawsuits are worth it if it makes it too expensive to continue operating. Not all defendants have the money to see such a lawsuit to trial. Not all plaintiffs do either. It is like an adult version of chicken.
@@archaicsage4803 Lol, there is no right to privacy for things in public view, and you do not own the airspace above your property beyond your usable airspace.
Hi Steve; I enjoy your posts. Today you remind me of my first day of jury duty, I was in my early 20's and summoned to Federal court for a case. It was a case of job related injury as a man was badly hurt while unloading a ship (I think that was what made it Federal). I had been interested in ships all my life and had studied a great deal about them, which I mentioned during our questioning (vor dure??) after opening arguments we were sent to the jury room while the presentations were being prepared. When we returned we were told that the case had been settled and our services were no longer needed. Even though we all got to go home early it was a bit of a disappointment. Love your “fluffy cow” T-shirt :-)
Jury selection-- I'm surprised they allowed you on the jury, since you were already knowledgeable about ships. My first time on a jury just 3 months ago, the juror candidates who gave strong opinions about Landlord-Tenant issues were let go. One guy in particular claimed to be a Tenants rights advocate, and opined that there should not be landlords. Bye-bye!
@@EXROBOWIDOW The case was about a steavador who was unloading the ship, this was before the use of containers were as common as today. The man had tried to climb up the inside of the hold, fallen and was severely injured. I was in my early twenties, but I could tell the others would respect my opinion. I did not express any thought on the merits of the case. I think they let me stay because I had not activly been involved in the actual transfer of cargo.
So if I fly drunk, the FAA can fine me and take my license away. But I've always thought, maybe mistakenly, that it is the state that can throw me in jail.
The only concern I can think of is starting a fire on the property in a balloon crash. But there would have to be a crash before a lawsuit could even be considered. Or if the occupants in the balloons are dropping trash from them onto the property, I could see that being a nuisance. This was unlikely to ever succeed. And I'll bet their lawyer kept telling them that.
Likely there are several similar cases involving unmanned areal vehicles (Drones). As an airline transport pilot and licensed commercial drone operator, I can tell you with reasonable certainty that one can overfly someone’s property. Essentially, an easement is granted to the FAA and the FAA allows overflights. There are nuisances, of course, such as loitering and “peeping” or creating a safety hazard. However, the safety aspect belongs to the FAA to determine.
Thanks for the very thorough explanation. I should mention, however, that the gas burner on one of those is pretty loud. If the balloon is low and at all near the house, the noise can be pretty bothersome. Or it could also agitate livestock or cases a horse to "spook."
I suspect the plaintiffs are less than reasonable, but I'm also thinking the burners could be valid reason to be unhappy. Even when the flight doesn't go over their property they might get to listen.
I love the shirt. I spend a lot of time in Yellowstone when I was growing up and saw a lot of stupid things. A friend and I were talking to a ranger one day and he told us about a family he came across one day. Mom was smearing jam on the toddlers face while dad got the camera ready. They wanted a picture of the bear licking the kids face.
The attorneys representing the plaintiff didn't do their due diligence or they would have known there was no case. If they did know, then they should be disbarred.
I know what it is like to prepare for a hearing in civil court and the defendant was a no show and won a default judgement against the other party. All that work for nothing.
