The entry onto the land was non-volitional.

Intent requires a volitional or voluntary act to bring

about a tortious result. Here there was no volitional act on the part of the hiker to enter the
landowners property

Trespass to land is intentionally entering or causing direct and tangible entry onto the land in the
possession of another. The only intent required is the intent to enter onto land. The trespasser
does not have to know that the land is in the possession of another. All that is required is
intentional entry onto land and the land you enter is in anothers possession. The required intent
is not the intent to trespass just the intent to enter land. Here the trespasser intended to enter land
in the possession of another and therefore there was trespass to land.

trespass requires an intentional act to enter or cause tangible entry onto the property of another.

Under the privilege of private necessity a person may enter the land of another without
permission in order to avoid serious and imminent harm to the person and the landowner has no
right to exclude that person and the person is not liable for any nominal damages associated with
trespass but would be liable for actual damages.

In times of private necessity the landowner has no right to exclude a person operating under the
privilege from access to her property.

Vicarious liability

Hotel Owner may not be subject to direct liability for the actions of Pipe Co. because Hotel
Owner did not owe a duty of care with respect to the manner in which Pipe Co. performed its
work and did not retain control over any part of its work.

Correct. It is a correct statement regarding the direct liability of one who hires an independent
contractor and does not retain control over any part of the contractors work. Restatement
(Third) Torts 56.

A defendant who hires an independent contractor is not subject to vicarious liability for physical
harm caused by the tortious conduct of the contractor. Restatement (Third) Torts 57.

Abnormally dangerous activity

An abnormally dangerous activity is one that creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of
harm even when reasonable care is exercised and the activity is not one of common usage.
Restatement (Third) Torts 20. A person who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity may
be subject to strict liability for physical harm resulting from it.
Negligence

A defendants compliance with customary standards does not preclude a finding of negligence.
Restatement (Third) Torts 13.

Hotels departure from this custom is evidence of its negligence.

Correct. A Defendants departure from custom is evidence that the defendant was negligent, but
such departure does not require a finding of negligence. Restatement (Third) 13.

Chucks violation of the statute may be used to establish his negligence, because the basic
purpose of the statute is to prevent accidents of this type and Alice is in the group of persons the
statute is designed to protect.

Correct. This response correctly provides the standard for using a statute to establish the standard
of care in negligence. Restatement (Third) Torts 14. This question asks about using a statutes
violation to establish the standard of care in a negligence action.

The reasonable prudent person standard does not take into account mental incapacities of the
defendant.

es ipsa loquitur requires proof that the accident is the type of accident that does not ordinarily
occur in the absence of negligence. Restatement (Third) Torts 17.

his question asks about the use of res ipsa loquitur to establish a defendants negligence. If
allowed to use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the jury is permitted but is not required to infer
that the defendant was negligent.