Luis Felipe Amunategui <<felipe.amunategui>>
writes:

Farview Airport (OI41) has been the operational base for an Ohio
Flyers tow site since 1997, and it was one of the oldest airports in Ohio
operating continuously since 1947. Farview was shut down yesterday by a Mr. and
Mrs. Pinter. They filed a nuisance claim against USHPA, Ohio Flyers, The Ohio
Department of Agriculture, The Hiram Township, Robert Essel and his wife (they
have an aviation business), and against my dear friend Ken and me.

After all defendants were dismissed by the court for lack of evidence except for
the three aviators, the jury without regard to any evidence before them, were
swayed by the plaintiff's tears and lies.

I will be forever grateful for the work that Tim Herr and Mitch Shipley did on
our behalf. Tim is a superb attorney and he mounted a defense that would have
prevailed before any impartial jury.

He was also able to force our insurance company to cover the litigation costs.
Initially they refused to cover the claim at all, and while they will provide no
coverage for damages awarded to the plaintiff, it was Tim Herr's work that
afforded us at least this level of coverage. This is even more evidence in
support of the USHPA's RRG initiative.

Mitch was a wonderful expert witness presenting irrefutable facts against the
plaintiff's claim that went unconsidered by the jury. So it is now left to
Robert Essel, Ken and me to appeal and deal with this mess without any insurance
coverage for either damages or for litigation costs. To avoid further cost and
damages of over $100,000.00 faced personally by Ken and I, we were forced to
settle.

So after 18 years of weekend operations that at its heyday may have seen 12 to
15 flights on a weekend we have no where to fly. This shuts down an operation
serving a handful of pilots from Pennsylvania and Ohio.

We have been guests of the owners who have allowed us free use of their airstrip
and storage of equipment for each flying season.

There has never been an aviation related incident associated with our operation.

I write to your readers about this to raise awareness about how easy it is to
find yourself on the defensive and out on a limb even while conducting yourself
properly both on the ground and in the air. I will be writing again to update
your readers as this injustice evolves.

The plaintiffs made many claims, all of them thrown out for lack of evidence
with the exception of a Nuisance claim. Without ever bringing this to our
awareness, or that of the land owners, the plaintiffs complained to the FAA, to
the county sheriff, to the township, to the county prosecutor. After due
diligence all of these entities confirmed that all the forms of aviation were
legitimate operations found in compliance with all applicable FAA, zoning and
agricultural regulations. The plaintiff alleges that our mere presence there
constitutes a nuisance, and since we know it bothers them it is an intentional
act.

This case, if it stands on appeal, will set a precedent where any neighbor
bothered by aviation activity at an airport can bring a claim against those
using the facility legitimately and as intended. This is very troubling not just
for hang gliding and aero towing ops, but to all of general aviation and private
airport owners.

This case prevailed on the tears of Mr. and Mrs. Pinter as they asserted that
there were well over 200 ops by our tow operation or more annually. We operate
on weekends from May to October-November at the latest. The mathematical
impossibility of the claimed operational volume did not bother the jury. Neither
were they swayed by the lack of one single witness that could speak about any
inappropriate behavior by us whether in the air or on the ground.

They also claimed to have suffered emotional distress without ever providing
independent evidence of such by a medical professional.

Additionally they asserted that I waved at Mr. Pinter from my glider as I came
to land which as he stated on the stand "it is the same as being given the
middle finger." I guess for jurors from a small town in Ohio it is the same.
However I did neither and they had no evidence other than her own assertions.

They also claimed that they left every weekend whenever they saw us. However the
plaintiffs took over 800 photographs of us operating on the weekend! That
contradiction apparently did not seem to introduce any doubt on the jury about
the truth of the plaintiffs' statements.

Dr. Shipley (AKA Mitch) who holds a Ph.D. in acoustic engineering, among other
advanced degrees, provided expert testimony about sound pressure levels and
flight path tracks. Despite convincingly showing, based on evidence, that there
were no over flights by our ops, and that the sound of our 103-compliant trike
is less of that riding mower and far less than an ATV or a Harley, the facts
seemingly introduced no doubt in the jury's mind about the lies told by the
plaintiff.

When Ken and I were dragged into this two years ago the USHPA insurance denied
us coverage on the grounds that there had been no damages or something to that
effect. It was Tim Herr who advocated on our behalf and convincingly argued that
the insurance had a duty to cover us. However they only covered the litigation,
and that coverage ends with this trial.

It all comes out of our pockets, including any awards. Neither Ken nor I have
any insurance that would cover the travesty awarded to these plaintiffs.

I wish to point at the irony presented by the baseless claims of these
individuals in contrast to the appointment I hold as chair of the towing
committee for many years.

I take my position as Chair of the Towing Committee and as a Regional Director
very, very seriously. I have attempted to always conduct myself both on the
ground and while in the air in a manner that is beyond reproach. I have overseen
an aero tow operation for over 20 years. In that period we underwent three FAA
inspections without raising one concern about our tow aircraft or about our
operational procedures. Now I learned that standard of conduct can still be
considered a nuisance by a jury.

What is a nuisance claim?

http://www.personalinjurylawyer.com/legal-advice/personal-injury/head-spinal-cord-injury/what-nuisance-claim

In order to bring a successful private nuisance claim, you must
demonstrate certain legal elements that vary from state to state. Typically,
these include:

1) unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful interference with use and enjoyment of
property.

2) the resulting harm is outweighed by the social benefit of the nuisance, and

3) the resulting damages are significant, and the kind that would be suffered by
a normal person (or normal property) in the same community (in other words, the
plaintiff is not hyper-sensitive).