Question 1:

A is an experienced private pilot. Early one Sunday morning in

February, A and his son decide to rent a plane from the local Flying
Club to practice some stunts. Although the officer at the club had
directed A to a particular plane, A misunderstood him and took
another plane of the same model. This plane which A took belonged
to B – an instructor at the Flying Club. The key fit perfectly into the
lock of B’s plane, and A did not realize his mistake. The plane
intended for A’s use had been cleared for stunt flying, but B’s plane
had not. This clearance involves a careful check of the plane to
ensure, amongst other things, no components, parts or cargo will
come lose and undone during flight. A took off, and once over open
countryside, decided that it was safe to begin his stunt manoeuvres.
As the plane somersaulted, a loose toolbox became unhinged and
burst through the rear door of the plane. The toolbox crashed into a
greenhouse some 1 000m below, severely damaging the structural
integrity of the building. The shattered roof had allowed the cold
winter air to enter the structure and ruin the valuable prize-winning
orchids that were growing inside. While A’s son, C, struggled to close
the open rear door, A rapidly reduced his speed and altitude to lower
the cabin air pressure. He swooped low over a farm which had a
barn. The sound of the plane had frightened the horses inside the
barn, causing one the them to kick the stable, breaking its back leg in
the process. As soon as it was safe to do so, A returned to the Flying
Club. Please advise A on his potential liability.
Issue :
Did A commit trespass? If yes then what kind of Trespass he shall be
held liable to?
Rule
Trespass to land : a direct intentional physical intrusion on land which
belongs to another.
Turner v Throne : An incidental damage resulting from trespass can
be held liable even though its innocent mistake, not deliberate or
without will.
Private Nuisance: A substantial and unreasonable interference which
hinders use and enjoyment of land in possession of another. Kerr et
al. v Revelstoke Building states trespass must be direct but nuisance
need not to.
Trespass to Airspace: a direct intentional physical intrusion in
airspace which belongs to another.
Atlantic aviation: interference in peaceful ordinary enjoyment of land
and structures upon it.

Analysis:
A by mistake took wrong plane there was no intention to swap the
plane also the keys easily helped him to use the plane, so here in we
can analyse that the mishap of series which occurred due to flying
this plane lacked the ingredient of “Intention”
Trespass of Land:
Crashing of toolbox into a greenhouse 1000m below, severely
damaging the structural integrity of the building. Is a Trespass of land
as toolbox entered directly in the land of greenhouse and caused
sever damage ie physical intrusion, which caused greenhouse’s
owner to loose his peaceful enjoyment of his property. Costello v
Calgary says belief of defendant is irrelevant. Also till the time this
toolbox remains to be on greenhouse premises it’s a continuing
trespass William v Mulgrave decided that a new cause of action arise
everyday. We can conclude A shall be held liable on these grounds.
A further flew the plane on a very low altitude above farm which
caused horses of farm to react in fear causing one to break his leg.
This caused Trespass to airspace as the airspace above the land which
was below 10 feet as per Aviation Regulation if infringed and caused
hinderance in peaceful enjoyment of ones property. Court shall apply
test of Reasonable test of airspace delivered by Air Canada case
further addressed in Atlantic Aviation i.e ordinary use and enjoyment
of land structures on it. A lowlying aircraft in this case can be held
liable for trespass through airspace by farm owner as it entered a
very low altitude where higher exposure of noise caused harm.
Since the damage was not direct Farm owner can claim damages
under Nuisance as there was a substantial and unreasonable
interference caused which hindered use and enjoyment of farm
owner.
Antrim truck centre laid two part test to establish elements of
nuisance
a) Interference substantial: loss of leg of chattel which was
breaded on the farm. It is serious in nature and cause heinous
damage to the farm owners.
b) Unreasonable interference: this was further elaborated in
Hurron steel case and P. Osborne listed 8 factors of
unreasonableness. From facts we can enlist
- Nature of interreference was permanent as the Horse broke
his leg
- The time duration of harm can be everlasting in case the
horse loose its capability to walk or function the way it use to
before
- Grevious effect of damage to chattle can be seen due to non
performing asset.
- Farm horse are breaded to procure source of income a loss
of leg will indefinitely hamper the utility of the asset.
These both test make it clear that the farm owner suffered a
substantial loss and impairment of right to enjoy the asset.
He have valid claim for damages under Nuisance.