What is the liability status of A, a non-peace officer, who mistakenly believes that B committed a felony and enters B's land to arrest him?

In the scenario where A mistakenly believes that B has committed a felony and enters B's land to arrest him, A is subject to liability to B. The legal principle at play here is that individuals must respect the property rights of others, regardless of their beliefs about a person's involvement in criminal activity.

The law distinguishes between an arrest made by peace officers, who are afforded certain legal privileges when making arrests, and non-peace officers like A. Even if A genuinely believes that B has committed a felony, this belief does not grant A the right to enter B's land without consent, especially since the belief is a mistake of fact. The law does not typically absolve non-peace officers of liability for trespassing simply because they acted under a mistaken belief about criminal activity.

While there are defenses available for individuals acting in self-defense or defense of others, these typically do not extend to cases involving property entry without permission in the absence of imminent harm. Thus, A's actions in entering B's land under these circumstances render A liable for trespassing, and B may seek damages or other remedies as a result of A's wrongful entry onto his property.

The other options, while plausible at first glance, do not apply because they either incorrectly suggest immunity