Question

A dog whistle manufacturer's factory was located near a residential area. The manufacturer used the most effective methods for testing its whistles, but it was impossible to completely soundproof the testing area. A breeder of champion show dogs bought some property near the factory and raised and trained her dogs there. Although the whistles were too high-pitched to be perceived by human ears, they could be heard by the breeder's dogs. Consequently, the dogs often were in a constant state of agitation.In a suit by the breeder against the manufacturer, what is the likely outcome?A The breeder will prevail on a trespass theory, because the sound waves are entering onto the breeder's property.B The breeder will prevail on a nuisance theory, because the sound of the whistles is a substantial interference with the breeder's use of her land.C The breeder will not prevail, because the sound of the whistles is not a substantial interference with the breeder's use of her land.D The breeder will not prevail, because the manufacturer has acted reasonably in testing its whistles.

Answer 1

Answer: the correct answer is C. the breeder will not prevail, because the sound of the whistles is not a substantial interference with the breeder's use of her land.

Step-by-step explanation:

A private nuisance is a substantial, unreasonable interference with another person's use or enjoyment of his or her property. The interference must be inconvenient, offensive or annoying to a common person in a community. In this case the dog whistle is not heard by humans and doesn't bother an average person.