||Airport Noise Litigation - Case Law Review (1973-1980).
Bennett, Ricarda L. ;
||Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Canoga Park, CA.;Environmental Protection Agency, Arlington, VA. Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
||BBN-4542; EPA-68-01-5014; EPA-550/9-82-326;
Aircraft noise ;
Noise pollution ;
Environmental impacts ;
Land use ;
Flight paths ;
Urban planning ;
||Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy.
This report examines the judicial trends in airport noise litigation by analyzing the decisions from many of the relevant legal cases since the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision in City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc. The conflict centers upon who controls the source of the aircraft noise and who is liable for aircraft noise-related damages. The significant issues arising out of these various airport/aircraft noise cases examine this conflict from four viewpoints: (1) Who is liable for aircraft noise related damages. (2) What is the scope of airport use restrictions. (3) What are the legal theories and trends in awarding aircraft noise-related damages. (4) What is the effect of land use planning and environmental impact statements on airport noise control. This extensive case law review indicates that the courts are continuing to hold the airport proprietor liable for aircraft noise-related damages. The judiciary is also expanding the legal theories and granting recovery for noise-related effects on people under the nuisance theory of emotional distress as well as under the traditional inverse condemnation theory for deprivation of property.