What determines A's liability when he enters B's land without explicit permission?

The answer is determined by the notion that the reason for A's entry onto B's land is crucial in assessing liability. In tort law, particularly under the principles found in the Restatement of Torts, the type of entry can dictate the standard of care required and potential liability.

When A enters B's property without explicit permission, the purpose of that entry plays a significant role in evaluating whether A has committed a tort. If A's purpose is for a legitimate reason—such as an emergency or to save a life—he may be excused from liability. However, if A's purpose is to commit a trespass with malicious intent or no good purpose, he is more likely to be found liable for any harm caused during the entry.

Considering the other options, the irrelevant nature of B's consent implies that the presence or absence of permission does not affect the overall assessment, which neglects the significance of purpose. The assertion that A is automatically liable regardless of purpose would overlook defenses available depending on the situation. Lastly, the idea that only actions resulting in damage matter is too narrow, as A's liability can be established even if no damage occurs, depending on the circumstances surrounding the entry. Therefore, focusing on the specific purpose of A's entry