hey, you, get off of my cloud!

With each new day that dawns it becomes more apparent that the Bar Examiners have little to no interest in actual, real-life law. The following fact pattern showed up on one of the practice questions I did today:

Y and Z own contiguous lots in the City of Palm Grove. Y became engaged in experimentation with artificial means to seed clouds in an attempt to suppress damaging rain storms. The rain storms apparently originated in and over the area in which Z's land is located. Z brought suit to enjoin such cloud seeding activity. At trial, it was found that Y had been conducting its activities over clouds above Z's land. According to further testimony, Y's seeding operations did, in fact, cause the complete dissipation of the clouds. The court should

(A) enjoin Y's seeding operations because it constitutes an unreasonable interference with the space above Z's land

(B) enjoin Y's seeding operations because one does not have the right to interfere with natural rainfall

(C) not enjoin Y's seeding operations if they were necessary to protect his property from the rain storms

(D) not enjoin Y's seeding operations because Z does not own the space above his land

The correct answer, as it turns out, is (A). I answered (D), even though my better judgment told me to pick (A), because these facts are so wacky my better judgment decided to check out. I wonder if the Rolling Stones somehow inspired the question.

Well, now I know better than to let my own reality-based legal training and judgment get in the way of the bar exam fantasy world.