With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". respect to the City's IELA claim against the Cures. Id. at *4 (internal citations, quotations, and footnote omitted). We are persuaded by Judge Young's analysis and agree that the plain language of the statute does not permit an ELA action against landlords who "[bly all accounts ... were not involved in the alleged release of hazardous substances and had no knowledge of the release." Id. Summary judgment on the ELA count was not error. 3. Trespass To demonstrate trespass, a plaintiff must prove he was in possession of land and the defendant entered the land without right. Lever Bros. Co. v. Langdoc, 655 N.E.2d 577, 581-82 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). A defendant can be liable for trespass if he releases noxious material that travels onto and damages another person's property. See id. at 582 (<HOLDING>). The question before us is whether a landlord

A: holding that a municipal sewer system is liable for the acts of a third party that discharged hazardous waste into the system
B: holding lever brothers liable for trespass when fatty greasy substance unlawfully released into public sewer system seeped into neighbors basement and caused damage
C: holding a municipality liable for negligently maintaining a sewer where despite extraordinary rainfall the unclogged sewer may have prevented damage to the plaintiffs property
D: holding a city liable for a dangerous condition caused by a submerged municipal sewer pipe in federal waters
B.