Pam and Dora own adjoining lots in the central portion of a city. Each of their lots had an office building. Dora decided to raze the existing building on her lot and to erect a building of greater height, and she received all governmental approvals required to pursue her project. There is no applicable statute or ordinance (other than those dealing with various approvals for zoning, building, etc.)"Assume that no problems with subsidence or other misadventures occurred during construction of Dora's new building. However, when it was completed, Pam discovered that the shadow created by the new higher building placed her building in such deep shade that her ability to lease space was diminished and that the rent she could charge and the occupancy rate were substantially lower. Assume that these facts are proved in an appropriate action Pam instituted against Dora for all and any relief available. Which of the following is the most appropriate comment concerning this lawsuit?
Pam is entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring Dora to restore conditions to those existing with the prior building insofar as the shadow is concerned. The court should award permanent damages, in lieu of an injunction, equal to the present value of all rents lost and loss on rents for the reasonable life of the building.  The court should award damages for losses suffered to the date of trial and leave open recovery of future damages. Judgment should be for Dora, because Pam has no cause of action.