In accord with both the traditional and the modern approach to conflict of laws, a federal court held that the law of the place where the property is situated (and where the harm is felt) applies even when the conduct took place in another state. Nnadili v. Chevron USA, Inc., 435 F.Supp.2d 93 (D.D.C. 2006). A gas station owner in Maryland allegedly allowed gasoline to be released from its underground storage tanks which polluted neighboring land in the District of Columbia.
The place of injury or the situs of the property are the laws that traditionally apply in this situation whether they help the plaintiff (the landowner) or not. That is likely still true even if the place of conduct finds it to be wrongful since a nuisance only occurs when the land owner suffers substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land.
In addition, the court held that the nuisance victims had a claim under D.C. law for damages emotional distress caused by the torts of trespass, nuisance, and negligence.