Herrin v. Sutherland
Supreme Court MT - 1925
Facts:
- D was standing on someone else's property shooting at ducks flying over P's property.
- P sued D for trespass and asked for $10 in damages.
Procedural History:
- Trial court found for P, D liable for trespass, nominal damages of $1.
- MT Supreme Court affirmed, D liable for trespass.
Issues:
- Is an action in trespass valid if D passes over or causes an object to pass over the land of another, even if nothing ever touches the soil?
Holding/Rule:
- An action in trespass is valid if D passes over or causes an object to pass over the land of another, even if nothing ever touches the soil.
Reasoning:
- Airspace near the ground is almost as inviolable as the soil itself.
- There were no physical damages, so there can only be nominal damages.
- Early common law said that a person owns the space above and below their land.
Dissent:
Notes:
