Dog Destroys Neighbor’s $900 Drone After He Provoked It, Now Neighbor Wants Compensation

There are few things more infuriating than feeling like you’re constantly being provoked, especially when it involves something as personal as your own backyard and your dog.

When one man’s neighbor repeatedly flew his drone low over the yard, it was only a matter of time before something went wrong. And sure enough, when the drone met the dog, it didn’t stand a chance.

What followed was a confrontation that quickly escalated into a potential legal dispute. The neighbor demanded payment for the drone he claimed was worth $900, but things didn’t go quite as he planned.

Scroll down to find out what happened when the man refused to hand over the money and how the police ended up involved in the situation.

A neighbor’s drone was destroyed by a dog after repeatedly flying over the yard, leading to a dispute about liability

Dog Destroys Neighbor’s $900 Drone After He Provoked It, Now Neighbor Wants Compensation — not the actual photo

OP later posted an update:

When boundaries are repeatedly ignored, even the most patient person can reach their breaking point. In OP’s case, the situation escalated because a neighbor continuously disregarded OP’s repeated requests to stop flying his drone over OP’s property.

This wasn’t just about a $900 drone; it was about disrespecting boundaries and creating conflict in a relationship that should have been neighborly.

From a legal standpoint, OP’s concerns about potential liability are valid, but the situation isn’t as simple as it may seem. According to property law, a person does not have ownership of the airspace above their yard, but they do have legal rights to their physical property.

If a drone is flying too low over OP’s yard and disturbing his property or his dog, it could be argued that the neighbor is trespassing or violating nuisance laws. The fact that the neighbor ignored OP’s requests to stop could give OP some legal standing to protect his property rights.

In this case, OP has already tried to resolve the issue directly by asking the neighbor to stop, which could help demonstrate that the neighbor’s actions were not just intrusive but deliberate and provocative. (Cornell Law School)

As for the drone itself, while OP’s dog did destroy it, there’s the issue of whether OP can be held liable for destruction of property. Generally, liability for damages comes from negligence or intentional misconduct. In this case, OP’s dog acted instinctively, and OP’s actions didn’t directly contribute to the destruction.

Legal experts note that to prove negligence, the neighbor would need to show that OP did something wrong, such as not securing the yard or being aware of the potential for the dog to cause damage.

However, it could also be argued that the neighbor’s actions, by repeatedly teasing the dog with the drone, were reckless and contributed to the damage.

The neighbor has a history of flying the drone dangerously close to OP’s dog, which could potentially be seen as provocation, leading to the dog’s response. (FindLaw)

OP also has some defense in terms of prior complaints about the drone. The police advised the neighbor to stop flying the drone to avoid conflict, showing that OP had attempted to resolve the issue peacefully.

However, when the neighbor continued to provoke the dog, OP had a legitimate reason to protect both his property and his pet.

In cases where a neighbor is provoking the situation, courts often take into consideration whether the provocation led to the eventual damage. In other words, the neighbor could be partially responsible for escalating the situation by taunting the dog and disregarding OP’s rights.

Ultimately, the neighbor’s claim to sue or press charges for destruction of property seems unlikely to hold up in court, especially given the context of provocation and prior complaints. OP was justified in feeling frustration and concern, as their personal space and property rights were repeatedly violated.

Legal experts point out that when a person has clearly communicated their boundaries, like OP did in asking the neighbor to stop flying the drone over his yard, the other party’s persistent disregard for those boundaries can reduce their chances of winning a case.

So, how do you protect your personal boundaries in a situation where someone continues to disregard them, and how can that frustration be addressed in a way that doesn’t escalate into legal consequences?

OP’s decision to assert their rights and protect their dog was completely justified, but the breakdown of communication with the neighbor has now led to a complicated situation.

The key takeaway is that when boundaries are ignored, it’s important to seek legal advice early on to understand your rights and responsibilities in protecting your property and loved ones.