When B uses reasonable force to expel A from his orchard without warning, is B liable for any injuries?

The correct answer is based on the principle that an individual has the right to use reasonable force to protect their property. In this scenario, B is exercising this right in response to A's trespass on his orchard. The law generally allows for a property owner to remove trespassers, and while reasonable force is permitted, there is an expectation that the force used should not exceed what is necessary to remove the intruder from the premises.

B's use of reasonable force implies that it was appropriate given the circumstances. The notion of protecting property outweighs the potential for liability, provided that the force used is not excessive. Therefore, if B's actions fall within the definition of reasonable force and do not result in gross harm, he would not be held liable for any injuries that A may sustain during the expulsion from the orchard.

In this context, the focus is on B's right to protect his property rather than any specific procedure such as providing a verbal warning before taking action. As a result, the lack of a warning does not automatically create liability if B acted within the bounds of reasonable force.