A homeowner whose dog ate a neighbour's drone has won a small claims court case and been awarded compensation. The neighbour had taken him to court seeking payment for the destroyed £675 drone, but the judge ruled in favour of the homeowner.
Background of the dispute
The trouble began when the neighbour repeatedly flew a drone low over the homeowner's back garden, allegedly to tease his dog. Despite several requests to stop, the neighbour insisted he was doing nothing wrong because the homeowner did not own the air above his property. Eventually, the dog leapt into the air, caught the drone, and completely destroyed it.
The neighbour demanded immediate payment for the drone, valued at $900 (£675). When the homeowner declined, the neighbour contacted the police, claiming he had been prevented from retrieving the drone. The homeowner sought legal counsel after worrying about potential legal action.
Court proceedings
The neighbour launched a claim in small claims court. The homeowner's mother-in-law, a paralegal secretary, arranged a complimentary consultation with a lawyer, who found the case entertaining and proposed filing a counterclaim. The homeowner also reported the matter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) after discovering the neighbour had allegedly been operating drones close to an airport, beyond visual line of sight, possibly violating regulations.
In court, the homeowner presented police reports, images of his garden, footage of earlier low-altitude passes over his dog, and veterinary invoices. The neighbour argued that the homeowner had maliciously placed a picnic table to enable his dog to leap high enough to intercept the drone. The homeowner clarified the table was purchased for outdoor dining.
Judge's ruling
The judge remained unconvinced by the neighbour's assertions. The court determined that persistently piloting the drone near the dog had caused the creature distress and could have led to serious harm if it had ingested fragments of the damaged drone. Instead of compensating the neighbour, the court ordered him to pay the homeowner nearly $2,000 (£1,500) to cover veterinary care, including X-rays, dental checks, sedation, and medication. The judge also prohibited the neighbour from operating drones above the homeowner's property in the future.
The homeowner has since fitted trail cameras around his residence for added reassurance. He said: "The only thing that could make this better is if the FAA finds a reason to fine him or take away his drones."
