115 Consider

"115 We consider first whether the complaint states a claim for relief based on common law private nuisance. This state has long recognized that an owner of land does not have an absolute or unlimited right to use the land in a way which injures the rights of others. The rights of neighboring landowners are relative; the uses by one must not unreasonably impair the uses or enjoyment of the other. 2 When one landowner’s use of his or her property unreasonably interferes with another’s enjoyment of his or her property, that use is said to be a private nuisance. Hoene v. Milwaukee , 17 Wis. 2d 209, 214 (1962); Metzger v. Hochrein , 107 Wis. 267, 269 (1900). See also Prosser, Law of Torts sec. 89, p. 591 (2d ed. 1971). The private nuisance doctrine has traditionally been employed in this state to balance the rights of landowners, and this court has recently adopted the analysis of private 2 In Abdella v. Smith , 34 Wis. 2d 393, 399 (1967), this court quoted with approval Dean Prosser ’s description of the judicial balancing of the reciprocal rights and privileges of neighbors in the use of their land: Most of the litigation as to private nuisance has dealt with the conflicting interests of landowners and the question of the reasonablen ess of the defendant’s conduct: The defendant’s privilege of making a reasonable use of his own property for his own benefit and conducting his affairs in his own way is no less important than the plaintiff’s right to use and enjoy his premises. The two ar e correlative and interdependent, and neither is entitled to prevail entirely, at the expense of the other. Some balance must be struck between the two. The plaintiff must be expected to endure some inconvenience rather than curtail the defendant’s freedom of action, and the defendant must so use his own property that he causes no unreasonable harm to the plaintiff. The law of private nuisance is very largely a series of adjustments to limit the reciprocal rights and privileges of both. In every case the court must make a comparative evaluation of the conflicting interests according to objective legal standards, and the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff must be weighed against the utility of the defendant’s conduct. Prosser, Law of Torts , sec. 89, p. 596 (2d ed. 1971) (Citations omitted)."