because, regardless of the named theories, plaintiffs are challenging the scope of the easement rights. And although plaintiffs assert that their private nuisance claim sounds in tort law and is therefore distinguishable, an easement owner cannot be held liable in private nuisance for the exercise of express easement rights. See Quintain Dev., LLC v. Columbia Natural Res., Inc., 210 W.Va. 128, 556 S.E.2d 95, 103-04 (2001) (“[T]he actions ... of the owner of an easement, which otherwise meet the legal definition of a nuisance, do not create a nuisance as to the estate servient to the easement unless those actions ... exceed the scope of the easement.”); Frizzell v. Murphy, 19 App.D.C. 440, 1902 WL 19685, at *4 (D.C.Cir.1902) (same); Restatement (First) of Property § 451 cmt. a (1944) (<HOLDING>). The Court analyzes TVA’s motion to dismiss
recognizing that the dominant easement owner not the servient estate owner bears responsibility for maintaining an easement recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance holding that one who possesses deeded easement need not use the easement to maintain his title and easement cannot be extinguished from nonuser alone holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement recognizing that where a grantee has an easement which he shares with others his duty to repair and maintain it must be apportioned with all other easement holders based upon the extent of the individuals use of the easement