Electco operates a factory that requires the use of very high voltage electricity. Paul owns property adjacent to the Electco plant where property adjacent to the Electco plant where he has attempted to carry on a business that requires the use of sensitive electronic equipment. The effectiveness of Paul's electronic equipment is impaired by electrical interference arising from the high voltage currents used in Electco's plant. Paul has complained to Electco several times, with no result. There is no way that Electco, by taking reasonable precautions, can avoid the interference with Paul's operation that arises from the high voltage currents necessary to Electco's operation. In Paul's action against Electco to recover damages for the economic loss caused to him by the electrical interference, will Paul prevail? 
Yes, because Electco's activity is abnormally dangerous.  Yes, for loss suffered by Paul after Electco was made aware of the harm its activity was causing to Paul.  No, unless Electco caused a substantial and unreasonable interference with Paul's business.  No, because Paul's harm was purely (D) No, because Paul's harm was purely economic and did not arise from physical harm to his person or property. 
Question: Electco operates a factory that requires the use of very high voltage electricity. Paul owns property adjacent to the Electco plant where property adjacent to the Electco plant where he has attempted to carry on a business that requires the use of sensitive electronic equipment. The effectiveness of Paul's electronic equipment is impaired by electrical interference arising from the high voltage currents used in Electco's plant. Paul has complained to Electco several times, with no result. There is no way that Electco, by taking reasonable precautions, can avoid the interference with Paul's operation that arises from the high voltage currents necessary to Electco's operation. In Paul's action against Electco to recover damages for the economic loss caused to him by the electrical interference, will Paul prevail? 
A. Yes, because Electco's activity is abnormally dangerous. 
B. Yes, for loss suffered by Paul after Electco was made aware of the harm its activity was causing to Paul. 
C. No, unless Electco caused a substantial and unreasonable interference with Paul's business. 
D. No, because Paul's harm was purely (D) No, because Paul's harm was purely economic and did not arise from physical harm to his person or property. 
Answer: