What must be established for a loss to qualify as a private nuisance according to the Wagon Mound 2 case?

In the context of the Wagon Mound 2 case, the concept of foreseeability is essential in determining whether a loss qualifies as a private nuisance. According to this ruling, for a claim of private nuisance to be valid, the harm or interference must be a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions. This approach emphasizes the importance of whether the defendant could reasonably have anticipated the damage that would result from their activity.

The case highlighted that even if the interference is substantial, if the harm was not foreseeable, the defendant may not be held liable for it. This aligns with the principles of tort law, which seek to establish a fair balance between the interests of the parties involved. In essence, the foreseeability of harm directly influences liability in nuisance cases, underscoring the expectation that individuals should only be held responsible for outcomes that they could have reasonably anticipated.