A hiker injured by a falling limb on private forest land the owner did not know about. Will the hiker prevail against the owner?

• A. Yes, because the owner knew the land contained hazards
• B. No, because the hiker was a licensee
• C. No, because the hiker was a trespasser and landowners owe no duty to trespassers
• D. Yes, because the owner had a duty to inspect for hazards

Answer: (C)

Premises liability hinges on the entrant’s status. A hiker on private forest land without permission is a trespasser, and landowners owe trespassers only a narrow duty—do not injure them willfully or wantonly. They are not generally obligated to inspect for hazards or warn about dangerous conditions that they don’t know about. Since the owner did not know about the fallen limb, there’s no duty to warn or fix the hazard, so the hiker cannot prevail on negligence. If the hiker were a licensee or invitee, the owner would have additional duties to warn or inspect, but those duties don’t apply here given the lack of knowledge and the trespasser status.