In nuisance defenses, which statement best describes the outcome?

• A. Nuisance is always actionable
• B. Nuisance is unavoidable result and damage is trifling
• C. Nuisance requires intent to harm
• D. Nuisance cannot be defended

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that liability for nuisance hinges on the level of interference, not just the fact that something troublesome occurs. If the nuisance is an unavoidable consequence of a lawful activity and the damage it causes is trifling, there is typically no actionable nuisance. Courts tolerate minor, incidental intrusions that cannot be avoided in the ordinary use of land, so such a nuisance doesn’t justify a remedy. This is why the statement describing the outcome as an unavoidable result with trifling damage best fits nuisance defenses. The other ideas don’t fit because nuisances aren’t automatically actionable, intent to harm isn’t required for nuisance liability, and there are defenses for situations where the interference is minor or unavoidable.