¶ 1. This case is before the court on certification by the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.61 (2007-08).1 Glen and Louann Hocking (hereinafter, "the Hockings") brought an action against the City of Dodgeville and a number of individuals for negligence, unlawful taking, and creating and maintaining a nuisance. Relevant to this appeal is the allegation of negligent maintenance of a nuisance against defendants Charles and Joan O'Rourke and Amy Crubaugh-*685Schrank (collectively hereinafter "the defendants").2 The circuit court concluded that no liability could arise because these defendants did not owe a duty to the Hockings under these circumstances. The Hockings appealed, and the court of appeals certified this case to the supreme court, which we accepted.

¶ 2. The issue presented to us for review is whether the defendants in this case, who are or were uphill landowners from the Hockings, are hable to the Hockings for damages allegedly caused by surface water, i.e., storm water, running from the defendants' property to the Hockings' property. We conclude that the defendants are not liable because, under the circumstances, the defendants have no duty to abate the alleged nuisance.

I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3. The Hockings purchased their home in 1978, and at that time there were no neighbors nearby. In 1989, Wallace Rogers purchased the land adjacent to the Hockings. Rogers hired Laurence Schmit, a professional engineer, to develop the property as a residential subdivision. In 1991, the land surrounding the Hookings' home, which would include the land uphill from the Hockings, and the streets around the Hockings' property, were developed by Rogers. As a result of Rogers' development, the Hockings' property is now at the bottom of a bowl. Prior to Rogers' development, the *686Hockings never had water leakage into their basement, but since this development the Hockings have had significant water problems. The increased water flow allegedly has caused problems with the Hockings' foundation and led to mold. Due to these problems, the Hockings have had to move out of their home.

¶ 4. A civil engineer consultant, Greg Stauder, inspected the Hockings' property and concluded that the increased storm water runoff flowing over the Hockings' property was due to the way in which Rogers developed the land. Because of Rogers' development, the grading around the property has been altered and the land was converted from absorptive agriculture to impervious surfaces, but storm sewers were not installed. The manner in which Rogers developed the land allegedly caused the Hockings' problems.

¶ 5. On February 16, 2007, the Hockings filed an amended complaint3 against the City of Dodgeville, Wallace Rogers, Laurence E. Schmit and the defendants in this case. The complaint alleged, in part, negligent maintenance of a nuisance. Relevant to this appeal are the defendants who live or once lived at 1104 Roelli Street, Dodgeville, Wisconsin. The 1104 Roelli Street property is adjacent to and directly uphill from the Hockings' property and is one home in the 1991 development of the land surrounding the Hockings' property. Defendant Crubaugh-Schrank lived at 1104 Roelli Street beginning in 1999 and defendants O'Rourke moved to 1104 Roelli Street in 2004. These defendant landowners did not modify the property in any way that could affect water drainage onto the Hockings' property.

¶ 6. The defendants moved the circuit court for summary judgment asserting that they had no duty to *687abate this nuisance. The circuit court concluded that, as a matter of law, the defendants could not be liable to the Hockings. It reasoned that the defendants had no duty to abate this nuisance because they were merely "possessors and titleholders in portions of upgrade property from the Hockings." Therefore, no duty to abate this nuisance arose. In addition, the circuit court concluded that even if a duty was owed and the defendants were negligent, liability should be precluded by the application of public policy factors. The Hockings appealed the circuit court's decision. The court of appeals certified the appeal to this court, which we accepted.4

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 7. "Whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law that this court reviews de novo." Schmidt v. N. States Power Co., 2007 *688WI 136, ¶ 24, 305 Wis. 2d 538, 742 N.W.2d 294. This court applies the same standards as those used by the circuit court, and these standards are set forth in Wis. Stat. § 802.08. Id. Whether a duty under the circumstances exists and the scope of such a duty are questions of law that we decide de novo. Hoida, Inc. v. M&I Midstate Bank, 2006 WI 69, ¶ 23 n.12, 291 Wis. 2d 283, 717 N.W.2d 17.

III. ANALYSIS

¶ 8. The Hockings assert that these defendants are liable for negligently maintaining a nuisance, which has allegedly damaged the Hockings' property. The Hockings argue that the circuit court erred by conducting a duty analysis because under Wisconsin law a duty is owed to the world at large, and thus, the defendants owe a duty to the Hockings because they are landowners. In addition, the Hockings also assert that public policy factors do not preclude liability in this case. The defendants on the other hand, argue that a public policy analysis is unnecessary because the circuit court's duty analysis was appropriate. The defendants, relying primarily on Hoida, reason that duty is and always has been a prerequisite to negligence, and as a result, duty is a relevant determination in this case. We agree with the defendants and therefore affirm the circuit court's decision with respect to the defendants having no duty to the Hockings to abate this nuisance under the circumstances of this case.

¶ 9. To prevail on their claim of negligent maintenance of a nuisance, the Hockings must first show that the defendants were negligent, which requires that defendants failed to act when they had a duty to act. See Wis JI — Civil 1920; see also Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 822, 824, 839 (1979) (discussing nuisance *689actions and providing that to prevail, the nuisance must be "otherwise actionable" and the defendant must have a positive duty to act). The analysis of this case centers on duty under the circumstances herein presented.5

A. Negligence

¶ 10. We first consider whether the Hockings can satisfy the fundamental elements of negligence. "Wisconsin courts have engaged a four-element analysis to determine whether an actionable claim for negligence has been stated." Hoida, 291 Wis. 2d 283, ¶ 23. The four elements are as follows: " '(1) the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty of care, (3) a causal connection between the defendant's breach of the duty of care and the plaintiffs injury, and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the [breach].'" Id. (citing Gritzner v. Michael R., 2000 WI 68, 235 Wis. 2d 781, ¶ 19, 611 N.W.2d 906).

1. Duty under Wisconsin law

¶ 11. Duty has always been a relevant element in Wisconsin's negligence analysis even though cases have more often been limited by the application of public policy factors. Nichols v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 2008 *690WI 20, ¶ 36, 308 Wis. 2d 17, 746 N.W.2d 220; see also Behrendtv. Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co., 2009 WI 71, 768 Wis. 2d 568, 768 N.W.2d 568 (Roggensack, J., concurring) (discussing duty under Wisconsin negligence law). The prevalence of a public policy factor analysis, however, does not eliminate consideration of the four elements of negligence. See Hoida, 291 Wis. 2d 283, ¶ 23 n.12 (reaffirming that there are four elements to a negligence analysis). Our focus in this case centers on the first element of "duty." Under the first element, "duty, involves two aspects: (1) the existence of a duty of ordinary care; and (2) an assessment of what ordinary care requires under the circumstances." Id., ¶ 27 (citing Hatleberg v. Norwest Bank Wis., 2005 WI 109, ¶¶ 17-18, 283 Wis. 2d 234, 700 N.W.2d 15).

¶ 12. While Wisconsin has adopted the minority view from Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928), which established that everyone owes a duty to the world at large, the duty owed to the world is not unlimited but rather is restricted to what is reasonable under the circumstances. Hoida, 291 Wis. 2d 283, ¶¶ 30-32. As a result, Wisconsin courts have in the past precluded negligence actions because a defendant did not owe a duty to the plaintiff under the circumstances. See Baumeister v. Automated Prods., Inc., 2004 WI 148, ¶¶ 18-21, 277 Wis. 2d 21, 690 N.W.2d 1 (concluding that the architect did not have a duty to supervise the construction of a church because the architect's contract stated he had no responsibility for construction of the church); Hatleberg, 283 Wis. 2d 234, ¶¶ 19-25 (concluding that a trustee of a bank did not have a duty to review a trust document to ascertain whether it worked for the stated purpose of the trust).

*691¶ 13. For example, in Hoida, we concluded that the plaintiffs claims were precluded because its "claim of a breach [wa]s based entirely on the theory that the defendants' duty of ordinary care under the circumstances required them to undertake certain tasks that we [] concluded ordinary care under the circumstances did not require." Id., ¶ 46. Thus, because there was no duty under the circumstances, no breach occurred, and there was not a viable negligence claim. Id. In Hoida, we relied on contractual provisions to evaluate the circumstances bearing on the scope of the defendant's duty of ordinary care. Id., ¶¶ 38-39. In the case at hand, we rely on common law doctrines governing surface water to ascertain the defendants' duty of ordinary care under the circumstances.

2. Duty under the circumstances of this case

¶ 14. This case concerns the allegation that uphill landowners have a duty to abate naturally occurring surface water that runs downhill onto the blockings' property. Although three distinct doctrines — the common enemy doctrine, the civil law rule,6 and the reasonable use rule — have developed over the years in order to analyze surface water problems, Wisconsin has adopted the "reasonable use" rule. 2 Robert E. Beck et al., Waters and Water Rights § 10.03(b)(3) (1991 ed., repl. vol. 2008); 5 Robert E. Beck, Waters and Water *692Rights § 59.02(b) (1991 ed., repl. vol. 2006). "Over the past sixty years, many states have shifted from the common enemy and civil law rules to the reasonable use rule." Id., § 59.02(b)(7).

¶ 15. Prior to 1974, surface water cases in Wisconsin were governed by the common enemy doctrine. See State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1, 8-10, 13-16, 224 N.W.2d 407 (1974) (rejecting the common enemy doctrine and adopting the reasonable use rule). The common enemy doctrine provided:

The right of an owner of land to occupy and improve it in such manner and for such purposes as he may see fit, either by changing the surface or the erection of buildings or other structures thereon, is not restricted or modified by the fact that his own land is so situated with reference to that of adjoining owners that an alteration in the mode of its improvement or occupation in any portion of it will cause water, which may accumulate thereon by rains and snows falling on its surface or flowing onto it over the surface of adjacent lots, either to stand in unusual quantities on other adjacent lands, or pass into and over the same in greater quantities or in other directions than they were accustomed to flow.

Watters v. Nat'l Drive-in, Inc., 266 Wis. 432, 435-36, 63 N.W.2d 708 (1954) (emphasis added). Therefore, under the common enemy doctrine, "each landowner ha[d] a privilege to deal with, dispose of, block, or divert diffused surface water in any manner as he sees fit, without legal liability for the injurious consequences to his neighbors' lands." 5 Beck, supra, § 59.02(b)(2).

¶ 16. This court applied the common enemy rule in Watters where the defendant constructed a drive-in theater on property that adjoined the plaintiffs property. Watters, 266 Wis. at 433. The defendant's property *693was such that some water percolated into the soil and the remaining ran off and onto the plaintiffs property. Id. However, as a result of the drive-in theater construction, which included facilities, driveways, tile drains, and sewage-disposal facilities, the land was graded and filled up so as to "change the natural contour of said land, which [] caused the artificial and unnatural flow of surface waters" to drain onto the plaintiffs property. Id. This drainage caused damage to the plaintiffs roadway and resulted in losing the use of some property. Id. This court in Watters concluded that "[u]nder the established law of this state[, i.e., the common enemy doctrine,] the plaintiffs have no cause of action for damages caused by drainage of surface waters, either because of the installation of tile drains or by changing the natural flow of such waters." Id. at 436.

¶ 17. While this court had applied the common enemy doctrine prior to 1974, in Deetz, we rejected that doctrine in favor of the reasonable use rule, which is embodied in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 822, adopted by this court. Crest, 129 Wis. 2d at 138; Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 277 Wis. 2d 635, ¶ 25 n.4.

¶ 18. In Deetz, this court concluded that the reasonable use rule as set forth in the "Restatement of Torts better comports with the realities of modern society than does the common enemy doctrine." Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d at 18. Under the reasonable use rule," 'each possessor is legally privileged to make a reasonable use of his land, even though the flow of surface waters is altered thereby and causes some harm to others, but incurs liability when his harmful interference with the flow of surface waters is unreasonable.'" Id. at 14 (citation omitted).

*694¶ 19. In Deetz, the plaintiff brought an action to abate a nuisance caused by an uphill landowner. Id. at 6. The defendant developed land on top of a bluff overlooking Lake Wisconsin. Id. Prior to development, the bluff land was used for crops and pasture, and thus the erosion and runoff was minimal. Id. However, after construction, one of the roads at the bottom of the bluff was covered by unusual amounts of sand in many places and the downhill plaintiff noticed that substantial sand deltas had formed along the lakeshore and in the lake, which led to a lake that was not navigable in some places. Id. The court, in Deetz, remanded to the circuit court for a determination of reasonableness. Id. at 21. Remand was necessary because the factual record was undeveloped due to the circuit court's dismissal under the common enemy rule. Id.

¶ 20. Accordingly, under the common enemy doctrine, no duty and thus no liability arose regardless of the defendants' actions. In other words, under the common enemy doctrine, a landowner was privileged to do with his land what he wanted. CEW Mgmt. Corp. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 88 Wis. 2d 631, 633, 277 N.W.2d 766 (1979); see also 5 Beck, supra, § 59.02(b)(2) (discussing the absolute freedom provided by the common enemy doctrine).

¶ 21. However, with the adoption of the reasonable use rule we altered a landowner's responsibility. Under this rule, a landowner must use his land reasonably, and a duty to act will arise if the landowner's use of his land that resulted in altering the flow of surface waters is unreasonable. See 5 Beck, supra, § 59.02(b)(4) (stating that the rule compares benefits and hardships with liability arising when the hardships are unreason*695able under all circumstances).7 As a result, when the defendant's conduct is unreasonable, that defendant has a positive duty to act to abate the nuisance. A positive duty to act must exist before liability will arise in a failure to abate claim such as the one presented here. CEW, 88 Wis. 2d at 635; Wis JI — Civil 1920; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 824 (1979). Conse*696quently, the defendants here have a positive duty to abate this nuisance only if the use of their property had altered the flow of surface water and was an unreasonable use of their property.

¶ 22. In the case at hand, however, the defendants' conduct did not involve a use of their property that altered the flow of surface water. Therefore, their use is not unreasonable, and they have no duty to abate in the first instance. The defendants merely purchased a home, lived in that home, paid property taxes, and established a tie to the community in which they live. They are living the American dream by owning a home. Their conduct — living in their home — does not deviate from typical behavior. They did not create the flow of rainwater or alter the property so to create this problem on the Hockings' property. The development by Rogers allegedly caused these problems. The defendants, for example, did not create a trench that increased the flow of water to the Hockings' property. The defendants did not point oversized downspouts at the Hockings' property. The defendants did not landscape in such a way so to unreasonably increase water flow to the Hockings' property. Instead, the defendants purchased a home in a development and lived there. The defendants could not reasonably be required to take positive action that would affect rainwater runoff onto the Hockings' property.

¶ 23. Moreover, as a practical matter, the necessary remedy to address the Hockings' problem could not be carried out by these defendants. Even the Hockings' civil engineer asserts that the development of the land by Rogers allegedly caused the nuisance because it converted the land from absorptive agricultural to impervious surfaces, altered the grading around the *697Hockings' property, and altered the streets surrounding the Hockings' property. According to the Hockings' own expert, the problem should be remedied by the installation of storm sewers, the construction of retention ponds, and the installation of a storm water collection and draining system. These remedies could not possibly be carried out by the defendants — one neighboring landowner in an uphill development. What duty would then exist for the landowners who are uphill from these defendant landowners?

¶ 24. The defendants' conduct in this case is reasonable under the circumstances, and as a result, no positive duty to abate this nuisance arises and the Hockings' claims for maintaining a nuisance cannot survive.

¶ 25. Still, the Hockings and the concurrence assert that a duty is owed to the world at large, and as a result, a duty here is assumed. As we stated above, however, duty is and always has been relevant under Wisconsin law even though cases have predominantly been analyzed under the public policy factors when there has been an assumption that a duty exists. The concurrence would conclude that mere home ownership employs a duty to all who could possibly be affected by the homeowner's property. Such a drastic implication of homeowner liability should not be assumed without further analysis under the circumstances. It is not the homeowner's duty to remedy every possible impact that could occur on a neighboring parcel. Sometimes, there is just no such duty to act under Wisconsin law.

¶ 26. The Hockings assert that by failing to act, one can be liable for continuing a nuisance even if the landowner did not cause the problem. We do not disagree that there are circumstances where liability can be established for failing to abate a nuisance. See *698Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 277 Wis. 2d 635, ¶¶ 63-74 (referencing the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 839 (1979)). However, no negligence exists in this case because the defendants' conduct did not involve altering the flow of surface water, and therefore, there is no duty to abate. As a result, the Hockings' claim for negligent maintenance of a nuisance cannot survive.

¶ 27. The Hockings spend significant time discussing the application of public policy factors in this case. However, we decline to address the public policy factors and instead resolve this case under a duty analysis because under the circumstances of this case, there is no doubt that the defendants did not have a duty to abate this nuisance.

¶ 28. Accordingly, under the reasonable use rule, a duty to act may arise when one uses his or her property unreasonably. If the property is being reasonably used, however, the landowner has no duty to abate the nuisance under the reasonable use rule. In this case, all the defendant landowners reasonably used their property, and as a result, they satisfied their duty of ordinary care under the circumstances.

IV CONCLUSION

¶ 29. We have been asked to decide whether the defendants in this case, who are uphill landowners from the Hockings, are liable to the Hockings for damages allegedly caused by surface water, i.e., storm water, running from the defendants' property to the Hockings' property. We conclude that the defendants are not liable because, under the circumstances, the defendants have no duty to abate the alleged nuisance.

*699By the Court. — The order of the circuit court is affirmed.

¶ 31. (concurring). I concur in the mandate affirming the circuit court's order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing them from the action. I agree that as a matter of law the defendants are not liable for a negligent failure to abate a private nuisance.

¶ 32. The majority opinion relies on several rationales in concluding that the defendants are not liable, without clearly explaining the relationship between the rationales, without identifying any single rationale as sufficient, and without stating whether all are necessary to conclude that the defendants are not liable.

¶ 33. The majority opinion appears to argue (1) that this is a case of an omission, not an affirmative act, and that in failing to abate the private nuisance (the omission) the defendants are not liable because they had no duty to abate the private nuisance (majority op., ¶¶ 10-22, 24 — 26); (2) that because the defendants did not create the private nuisance, they are not liable for failing to abate the nuisance (majority op., ¶¶ 22, 26); (3) that the defendants did not unreasonably interfere with the flow of surface water and therefore are not liable under the "reasonable use" doctrine adopted in State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1, 224 N.W.2d 407 (1974) (majority op.,passim); and (4) that it is unreasonable to require the defendants to abate the private nuisance in view of the extensive work and costs involved in abating this nuisance (majority op., ¶ 23).

*700¶ 34. I conclude that the defendants are not liable because the private nuisance is not abatable, meaning that abatement cannot be accomplished without unreasonable hardship or expense. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 829 cmts e & f.

¶ 35. First I shall set forth what I think is the law applicable to the present case and then I shall point out the errors of the majority opinion's way.

I

¶ 36. The proper approach to this case is to recognize that three discrete areas of tort law converge in the instant case: private nuisance law,1 negligence law,2 and the tort liability of a possessor of property.3 When these three areas of law converge, as they do in the instant case, special rules of law apply.

*701¶ 37. A private nuisance is "a condition or activity which unduly interferes with the use of land."4 This case involves a private nuisance, in contrast with a public nuisance.

¶ 38. Private nuisances can be intentional or negligent.5 Thus in the instant case principles of negligence play a role in private nuisance law.

¶ 39. Furthermore, private nuisance law and negligence law are intertwined with special rules that have developed over the years relating to the tort liability of possessors of land. Like nuisance and negligence law, the law relating to the liability of land possessors has been treated as a discrete field of tort law.

¶ 40. These three discrete areas of the law have been synthesized in the Restatement (Second) of Torts in §§ 822-840A. This court has expressly adopted § 822 *702(stating the general rule subjecting a person to liability for a private nuisance)6 and has referred to and followed other sections, including § 824 (describing the conduct essential to liability for a private or public nuisance)7 and § 839 (stating the rule governing liability for a possessor of land who fails to abate an artificial condition),8 in deciding nuisance cases. I would use our prior cases that rely on the Restatement to decide the present case.

¶ 41. The inquiry under the Restatement (and our prior case law) begins with Restatement (Second) § 822.9

¶ 42. Section 822 is the Restatement's general rule governing liability for a private nuisance.10 Section 822 provides in full as follows:

*703One is subject to liability for a private nuisance if, but only if, his conduct is a legal cause of an invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land, and the invasion is either

(a) intentional and unreasonable, or

(b) unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling liability for negligent or reckless conduct, or for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities.

¶ 43. An action for the negligent failure to abate a private nuisance falls within § 822(b) rather than § 822(a). Under § 822(b), a person is subject to liability for the negligent failure to abate a private nuisance if three elements are met: (1) there is "an invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land,"11 (2) the person's conduct is "a legal cause of [the] invasion," and (3) the invasion is "otherwise actionable under the rules governing liability for negligent conduct."12

¶ 44. The first two elements are not at issue in the present case; the third element relating to liability for *704negligent conduct is at issue. I therefore focus my attention on the third element pertaining to whether a defendant's conduct is actionable under the rules governing liability for negligent conduct.

¶ 45. The comments to § 822 state that a court should look to Restatement (Second) § 824 for the standard used to determine "the type of conduct necessary to liability under the rule stated in [§ 822]." See also CEW Mgmt. Corp. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 88 Wis. 2d 631, 635, 277 N.W.2d 766 (1979) (stating that § 824 "is controlling in the determination of conduct that comes within the purview of sec. 822").

¶ 46. Section 824 (titled "Type of Conduct Essential to Liability") provides in full as follows:

The conduct necessary to make the actor liable for either a public or a private nuisance may consist of

(a) an act; or

(b) a failure to act under circumstances in which the actor is under a duty to take positive action to prevent or abate the interference with the public interest or the invasion of the private interest.

¶ 47. The instant case may be viewed as a failure to act under § 824(h). If so, I must determine whether under the circumstances of the case the defendants were under a duty to take positive action to abate the invasion of the private interest.

¶ 48. Sections 838-840 of the Restatement (Second) set forth "the circumstances under which the law imposes a duty on a person to take positive action for *705the protection of another and subjects him to liability if he fails to meet the standard of action required in the particular case."13

¶ 49. I therefore focus on §§ 838-40 to determine whether any of these provisions impose upon the defendants in the present case a duty to take positive action to abate the private nuisance.

¶ 50. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 839, entitled "Possessor Who Fails to Abate Artificial Condition" is relevant to the instant case. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are liable for their failure to abate a nuisance resulting in part from an artificial condition on the defendants' land. This court has relied upon § 839 in Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District v. City of Milwaukee, 2005 WI 8, ¶¶ 73 & n.23, 76 n.24, 79, 85, 277 Wis. 2d 635, 691 N.W.2d 658.

¶ 51. Section 839 of the Restatement imposes a duty on a possessor of land14 to take reasonable steps to abate an artificial condition on land causing a nuisance. The scope of the duty depends on the circumstances. A possessor of land has a duty to abate an abatable artificial condition when: (a) the land possessor knows or should know of the condition and the nuisance or unreasonable risk of nuisance involved, (b) the land possessor knows or should know that it exists without the consent of those affected by it, and (c) the land possessor has had a reasonable opportunity to take reasonable steps to abate the condition or to protect the *706affected persons against it. If a land possessor fails to take reasonable steps under the circumstances stated in § 839, the land possessor's conduct is actionable.

¶ 52. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 839 provides in full as follows:

A possessor of land is subject to liability for a nuisance caused while he is in possession by an abatable artificial condition on the land, if the nuisance is otherwise actionable, and

(a) the possessor knows or should know of the condition and the nuisance or unreasonable risk of nuisance involved, and

(b) he knows or should know that it exists without the consent of those affected by it, and

(c) he has failed after a reasonable opportunity to take reasonable steps to abate the condition or to protect the affected persons against it. (Emphasis added.)

¶ 53. I will discuss only those aspects of § 839 that are at issue and apply specifically to the present case.

¶ 54. First, if the particular artificial physical condition is not abatable, a possessor of land who did not create the artificial condition is not liable. Restatement (Second) § 839 cmt. e. An abatable condition is "one that reasonable persons would regard as being susceptible of abatement by reasonable means." Restatement (Second) § 839 cmt. f. An artificial condition is not abatable unless abatement can be accomplished without unreasonable hardship or expense. Id. This provision was cited with approval in Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, 277 Wis. 2d 635, ¶ 73 n.23.

¶ 55. Second, a possessor of land may be liable under Restatement § 839 for failing to abate a private nuisance resulting frQm an abatable artificial condition *707on the possessor's land even though the possessor played no role in creating the artificial condition or the nuisance. The comments to § 839 explain that "a vendee or lessee of land upon which a harmful physical condition exists may be liable under [§ 839] for failing to abate it after he takes possession, even though it was created by his vendor, lessor or other person and even though he had no part in its creation." Restatement (Second) § 839 cmt. d. Liability under § 839 for the failure to abate an artificial condition on land causing nuisance to another "is not based upon responsibility for the creation of the harmful condition." Restatement (Second) § 839 cmt. d.

¶ 56. Third, Restatement § 839 imposes a duty of due care on a possessor of land. The scope of the duty (that is, the standard of care) is "to do what is practicable and reasonable under the circumstances" to abate a private nuisance resulting from an artificial condition on the possessor's land. Restatement § 839 cmt. e. A land possessor's liability under Restatement (Second) § 839 is based "upon the fact that [a possessor of land] has exclusive control over the land and the things done upon it and should have the responsibility of taking reasonable measures to remedy conditions on it that are a source of harm to others." Restatement (Second) § 839 cmt. d.

¶ 57. This case might be decided on a number of factors under § 839, but it is clear under the record in the instant case that the artificial condition at issue here is not abatable and that the defendants have not violated their duty to do what is practicable and reasonable under the circumstances. Even viewed most favorably to the plaintiffs, the record does not support the conclusion that the defendants could have abated the nuisance to the plaintiffs by using reasonable *708means.15 As a matter of law, the defendants therefore did not breach their duty as possessors of land to do what is practicable and reasonable under the circumstances to abate a private nuisance resulting from an artificial condition on the land that they possess.

¶ 58. For these reasons, I agree with the majority opinion that the defendants are not liable for the private nuisance in the present case.

II

¶ 59. Here's why the majority opinion has lost its way:

¶ 60. First, the majority opinion relies too heavily on classifying the defendants' conduct as an omission to act and applying what it considers applicable rules of negligence law in determining that the defendants are not liable.16

*709¶ 61. As I have written previously, the distinction between omission and commission is a nebulous one.17 This case proves the point. The defendants' conduct is an omission if characterized as a failure to abate a private nuisance and is an affirmative act if characterized as maintaining a private nuisance. Indeed, our nuisance cases appear to move freely between characterizing a defendant's conduct as a failure to abate a nuisance (an omission) and the maintenance of a nuisance (a commission).18

*710¶ 62. Restatement § 824(b) uses language consistent with the commission/omission distinction, but the distinction between commission and omission is not outcome-determinative in the present case because the possessor of land has a duty relating to the maintenance of (or failure to abate) artificial conditions on the land. Restatement § 839 imposes a duty upon a possessor of land to conform his or her conduct to a standard of care by doing what is reasonable and practicable under the circumstances to abate a nuisance resulting from an artificial condition on the possessor's land.

¶ 63. In sum, the majority opinion errs in ignoring the special tort rules applicable to a case involving private nuisance, negligence, and possessors of land.

¶ 64. Second, the majority opinion erroneously concludes that a possessor of land who did not create an artificial condition on the land causing a nuisance cannot be liable for merely failing to abate the condition. The Restatement and our case law declare that a possessor may be liable even if the possessor did not create the artificial condition.19

*711¶ 65. Third, the majority opinion erroneously concludes that the defendants' liability is precluded by the "reasonable use" doctrine relating to interference with the flow of surface waters.

¶ 66. Interference with the flow of surface water is treated in the Restatement as a nuisance. Under Restatement § 833 (titled "Interference with the Flow of Surface Waters"), "[a]n invasion of one's interest in the use and enjoyment of land [i.e., a private nuisance] resulting from another's interference with the flow of surface water may constitute a nuisance under the rules stated in §§ 821A-831," setting forth the Restatement's general provisions relating to nuisance. Put another way, § 833 provides that when an interference with the flow of surface waters results in a private *712nuisance, "the same general rules apply in determining liability for the invasion of the neighbor's interest in the use and enjoyment of his land as apply when an invasion results through vibrations, noise, smoke or the pollution of waters."20

*713¶ 67. The Restatement adopts the reasonable use doctrine for intentional nuisances. This court adopted the reasonable use doctrine in State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1, 224 N.W.2d 407 (1974) 21 Deetz recognized that the "reasonable use" doctrine is codified in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 833 and adopted the reasonable use doctrine as codified in § 833 22

¶ 68. Under the reasonable use doctrine, "each possessor is legally privileged to make a reasonable use of his land, even though the flow of surface waters is altered thereby and causes some harm to others, but incurs liability when his harmful interference with the flow of surface waters is unreasonable."23

*714¶ 69. The "reasonable use" doctrine codified in Restatement § 833 and adopted in Deetz governs intentional invasions of the neighbor's interests, not negligent invasions such as in the present case. Deetz concerned an intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land. See Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d at 19. Accordingly, the court in Deetz relied upon provisions in the Restatement (Second) falling within §§ 826-831, governing intentional nuisances. See Deetz 66 Wis. 2d at 19-20.

¶ 70. In other words, when a private nuisance results from an intentional interference with the flow of surface water, "liability depends upon whether the invasion is unreasonable" under Restatement of Torts (Second) §§ 826-831 (relating to the reasonableness of an intentional invasion of another's interest in the use or enjoyment of land).24

¶ 71. In contrast, when a private nuisance results from a negligent interference with the flow of surface water, Restatement § 833 requires the same inquiry as Restatement (Second) § 822(b), setting forth the general rule of liability for a private nuisance based on negligent conduct.25 I applied § 822(b)'s general rule in *715Part I of the concurrence, as well as the more specific rules (§ 824 and § 839) to which § 822(b) directs the inquiry under the circumstances of the present case. Although liability for the negligent maintenance of a nuisance depends upon whether the defendant's conduct is unreasonable, the test is not whether the defendant has interfered with the flow of surface waters through an unreasonable use of land.

¶ 72. For the reasons set forth I conclude that the majority's legal analysis of the instant case is faulty. I write separately to set forth what I conclude is the correct legal analysis.