Appellants admit that their land is not contaminated and that aside from alienability, their use of the property remains unaffected. Nevertheless, appellants argue that they are entitled to relief under a theory of private nuisance. In tort, one may be damaged but not suffer a legal injury. Although appellants have clearly alleged damages, we must decide whether they were a result of a compensable injury. We conclude that they are not.
Appellants claim that the interest invaded was their ability to sell their property.
We find, however, that this is not the type of injury contemplated by the Restatement. Admittedly, a broad reading of the Restatement definition could include appellants' claim. It has been noted that the concept of nuisance is broad enough to encompass virtually all harms. Thus, courts must determine sensible limits to liability under this potentially sweeping concept. After careful consideration, we conclude that private nuisance only recognizes injuries that require physical presence on the property in order to be perceived.