In a nuisance action over clock tower chimes that disturb only one abnormally sensitive neighbor, will the homeowner likely prevail?

• A. No, because nuisance requires harm to a normal member of the community, not only an abnormally sensitive person.
• B. Yes, because any disturbance constitutes a nuisance regardless of others' experiences.
• C. Yes, because the neighbor's uniqueness makes the disturbance unlawful.
• D. No, because the chimes are lawful and authorized.

Answer: (A)

In nuisance law, you look at whether the interference with the use and enjoyment of land would be substantial and unreasonable to a normal person in the community. If the disturbance only affects an unusually sensitive individual, the plaintiff generally cannot recover unless the nuisance would also disturb a normal neighbor. Here, the clock tower chimes disturb only one abnormally sensitive neighbor, not the average person. Since a typical resident wouldn’t be harmed by the chimes, the homeowner is unlikely to prevail.

Even though the chimes are lawful or authorized, that fact alone doesn’t create a nuisance; the reasonableness of the interference is judged by how it affects an ordinary member of the community. The other options misstate the standard by making nuisance depend on any disturbance, on the plaintiff’s uniqueness, or on legality alone without considering normal-person impact.