A landowner builds an eight-foot fence with barbed wire to protect wildlife on her land. A photographer is injured trying to enter and dies. In a tort action by the photographer's personal representative, what is the likely result?

• A. Yes, the landowner liable for negligence due to dangerous equipment.
• B. No, the landowner is privileged to protect property from intrusion by a reasonable device given visible warning.
• C. Yes, because the barbed wire caused the death and she failed to warn.
• D. No, because trespassers assume risk.

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is that a landowner may use reasonable devices to protect property from intrusion, and a trespasser is not entitled to the same safety protections as a licensee or invitee. A photographer who enters without permission is a trespasser, and the landowner’s eight-foot fence with barbed wire, provided there are visible warnings, is a standard, reasonable means to deter intrusion and protect wildlife. Because the device is reasonable for the purpose and the warnings are visible, the landowner is privileged to use it, and there is no tort liability to the trespasser’s representative for injuries caused by that device. The barbed wire isn’t automatically negligent merely for being dangerous; the key is that its use is a reasonable precaution to protect property and is accompanied by warning.