4. In the neighbor's action against the company to recover damages for the economic loss caused to him by the electrical interference, will the neighbor prevail?

A nuisance is a tortious harm which interferes with either private property rights or public rights. A private nuisance is a substantial, unreasonable interference with another private individual's use or enjoyment of property that is offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to an average person in the community. To prevail on a private nuisance claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the nuisance is an unreasonable interference, by showing that the injury outweighs the utility of the defendant's conduct.

C is correct. The neighbor will not prevail because the company did not cause a substantial or unreasonable interference with his business. Although the company clearly interfered with the neighbor's business operations, and therefore the use and enjoyment of his property, the interference was not unreasonable or substantial such that a court's balancing of interests would weigh in favor of the neighbor. According to the facts, the high voltage current was not a severe or pervasive interference, and instead occasionally interfered with the neighbor's equipment. Further, the facts indicate that it would not be feasible for the company to eliminate the interference while still continuing its own operations. Consequently, because the nuisance posed by the company to the neighbor was not objectively substantial or unreasonable, the neighbor would not recover damages for economic loss under a private nuisance claim against the company.

A is incorrect. Not only will the neighbor not recover because the company's interference was not sufficiently substantial or unreasonable, but the neighbor will also not recover on the basis that the company's high voltage electricity was abnormally dangerous. To qualify as abnormally dangerous, an activity cannot be performed without risk of serious harm to persons or property no matter how much care is exercised. Here, however, although high voltage electricity could obviously be dangerous, there is no evidence under the facts as presented that the company's operations were impossible without a risk of serious harm. In particular, although the company could not run its operations without causing a harm to the neighbor, that harm was a slight interference and not physical harm or property damage.

B is incorrect. The neighbor will not recover on the basis that the loss suffered occurred after the company was made aware that its activities were causing harm. Although nuisances generally must be intentional interferences, this interference was not sufficiently substantial or unreasonable to be actionable and allow the neighbor to recover damages.

D is incorrect. Although the neighbor will not prevail, he would not be barred from recovering damages on the basis that the harm experienced was purely economic and did not entail physical harm to person or property. A plaintiff bringing a nuisance claim can recover based on solely economic damages, and under the facts here, the neighbor could hypothetically show that the electrical current caused physical harm to his equipment, thereby unreasonably damaging his business property. Absence of physical harm to person or property is evidence that the company's operations were not abnormally dangerous, but not an inherent bar to a nuisance claim.