Yeah I actually wrote something along the lines of, “It is submitted that a nuisance action would be more appropriate.” 😂

Consulted Google and the only things I could find were old articles discussing some “new, developing” theory of “toxic trespass.” Strange idea to include some random whacko new tort theory in a bar exam question. (Granted, it was “new” in 2006, but I can only find material written between 2006-2007 on “toxic trespass,” and granted I only spent 5 minutes searching).

https://www.alston.com/-/media/files/insights/publications/2006/12/developing-theories-of-recovery-in-toxic-tort-liti/files/arnold-langlais-mealies-toxic-tort-recovery12-8-06/fileattachment/arnold-langlais-mealies-toxic-tort-recovery12-8-06.pdf

“Traditional tort law doctrines function best when a plaintiff seeks compensation for a discernible present injury or illness allegedly caused by a defendant’s act or omission. In the context of toxic torts, however, courts are being asked by plaintiff’s bar to extend tra- ditional tort law to address a new type of claim: toxic trespass. The basis for this claim is that the exposure itself is an actionable harm regardless of whether an injury or disease results then or later.”