High Court Upholds Right to Sue Over Airport Jet Noise
Opening the way for millions of dollars in claims, the Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling allowing California residents to sue airports repeatedly for jet noise, other nuisances and loss of property values.
In a brief order, the justices refused to hear a challenge by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority to a ruling last September by the state Supreme Court permitting such suits, despite the contention that federal laws regulating airports and airlines preempted them.
The California court ruled that as a “continuing nuisance,” airports could be sued in noise-related cases successively by the same plaintiffs until the problem subsided.
The high court’s action came as a substantial victory for more than 400 property owners who are now free to seek damages from the Burbank airport authority. It also clears the way for hundreds of other plaintiffs to press similar claims against Los Angeles International Airport, Ontario International and other airports throughout the state.
Richard K. Simon, an attorney representing the Burbank airport, expressed disappointment with the justices’ refusal to review the California ruling (Burbank vs. Baker, 85-1101). He said that while California airports still could win cases at trial, they now face an unsatisfactory choice of fighting repeated and costly lawsuits in court or giving in to demands by local residents for curtailed flight schedules, erection of sound-barrier walls or other measures that might reduce noise but would hurt air travel.
“This presents a very, very difficult situation for the California airport proprietor,” said Simon. “It’s not likely such rulings will be made in other states. This decision appears to be a unique expression of the California Supreme Court.”
John J. Schimmenti, representing residents who sued the Burbank airport, welcomed the court’s action. Before now, he noted, noise-related nuisance suits were opposed in court by airports on the grounds that they could be filed only when an airport opened. “The impact of this ruling is that you’re going to be able to file a case now and not be met with the contention that it’s too late,” he said.
Los Angeles Gives Support
The City of Los Angeles, supporting Burbank airport officials in the case, noted that some 750 plaintiffs have noise-related suits pending against the city seeking $17 million for personal injury and emotional distress and $23 million in property damages. The Ontario airport faces suits by some 800 plaintiffs seeking more than $35 million in damages.
City attorneys listed numerous noise mitigation steps taken at Los Angeles airport in recent years, including a 1,500-foot sound barrier wall, but pointed out that such measures had not stemmed the tide of litigation. Five families that benefited from the sound barrier filed suit contending that the wall was an eyesore that depreciated their property values, the attorneys said.
In another action Monday, the justices left intact a state Supreme Court ruling last July that could cost California’s banks hundreds of millions of dollars by permitting customers to challenge the size of fees charged for checks written with insufficient funds.
The ruling (Crocker vs. Perdue, 85-1035) allowed Paul Perdue, a San Francisco attorney, to contest as “unconscionable” a $6 fee for a bounced check that had cost the Crocker National Bank less than $1 to process. Perdue’s attorneys estimated that California banks charge customers more than $200 million a year for such checks.
Lawyers for Crocker, supported by several banking groups across the nation, urged the justices to review the California ruling. They contended that federal law bars state courts from regulating service charges by national banks.
