In 1976, Utility constructed a new plant for the generation of electricity. The plant burns lignite, a low-grade fuel which is available in large quantities. Although the plant was constructed in accordance with the best practicable technology, the plant emits a substantial quantity of invisible fumes. The only way Utility can reduce the fumes is by the use of scrubbing equipment that would cost $50,000,000 to install and would increase the retail price of generated electricity by 50 percent while reducing the volume of fumes by only 20 percent. Because of the expense of such equipment and its relative ineffectiveness, no other generating plants burning lignite use such equipment. The plant is located in a sparsely settled rural area, remote from the large city served by Utility. Farmer owned a farm adjacent to the plant. He had farmed the land for 40 years and had lived on the premises. The prevailing winds carry fumes from the new plant over Farmer's land. His 1976 crop was less than half the average size of this crop over the five years immediately preceding the construction of the plant. It can be established that the fumes caused the crop reduction. Farmer's hay fever, from which he had long suffered, became worse in 1976. Physicians advised him that the lignite fumes were affecting it and that serious lung disease would soon result unless he moved away from the plant. He did so, selling his farm at its reasonable market value, which was then $10,000 less than before the construction of the plant."If Farmer asserts a claim based on negligence against Utility for crop damages, will Farmer prevail?
No, because Utility was not negligent.  No as to 1976 crop damage, because Farmer did not mitigate damages by selling his farm in 1975.  Yes as to 20 percent of his crop damage, because use of available equipment would have reduced the fumes by 20 percent.  Yes, because operation of the plant constitutes a nuisance