42. Does the pilot have a viable claim against the homeowner for battery?

C is correct. A battery occurs when a defendant brings about harmful or offensive contact upon the plaintiff with the intent to do so. The homeowner ordered the dogs to attack and so caused the harmful contact to occur with the requisite intent. Therefore, the pilot has a case for battery. The homeowner may then seek to assert a defense of property defense against the pilot, which is a defense to intentional torts. However, when an actor has a privilege to enter the land of another because of necessity, that privilege supersedes the privilege a landowner has in defense of property. Because the pilot had the privilege of necessity, which would defeat the homeowner's defense of defense of property, the pilot can bring a viable battery claim.

A is incorrect. The pilot had the privilege of necessity to enter the homeowner's land, which defeats any right the homeowner had to the defense of his property. Additionally, only reasonable force may be used to defend property, unless there is an additional threat of bodily harm to the owner. In this case, the use of vicious dogs would be excessive force against a mere trespasser.

B is incorrect. Even though the pilot was a trespasser, he has the defense of private necessity.

D is incorrect. Even if the pilot had seen the warnings, he still had the defense of private necessity to enter the property. And the use of vicious dogs would be a use of excessive force against a mere trespasser, which is not allowed.