P.3d 753, 758-59 (App.2014) (rejecting public policy argument that would impose duty on event organizers for portions of event outside their control). Finally, the Cottonwood Airport did not have the ability to control the airspace where the aerial accident took place. See 14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (providing right-of-way rules for aircraft); 14 C.F.R. § 91.126 (listing regulations for the airspace around an uncontrolled airport); see also Bishop v. City of Chicago, 121 Ill.App.2d 33, 257 N.E.2d 152,155 (1970) (noting that an airport operator as possessor of land does not owe a duty of care to business invitees who are outside the physical premises over which airport operator has control); Clark v. New Magma Irrigation & Drainage Dist., 208 Ariz. 246, 251, ¶ 21, 92 P.3d 876, 881 (App. 2004) (<HOLDING>). As a result, the trial court did not err in
recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance holding that a defendant easement holder did not owe duty to protect an invitee from a fence which the defendant had no right to control holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement holding that an easement by prescription may be obtained against the holder of a present interest but that that prescriptive easement is subject to divestment if and when the property passes to the holder of a future interest holding a property owner had no duty to erect a fence to protect a lessees child from an adjacent river