Amotorist was driving along a narrow, winding road when his car ran out of gas. because the road had no shoulders, the motorist pushed his car onto the driveway of a landowner. finding no one home at the house, the motorist started walking toward a gas station he had passed a mile back. while he was gone, the landowner returned and found the car in his driveway, with two of its wheels partially on his flower garden. although the landowner had not posted any "no trespassing" signs, he believed he had the right to remove the car from his property. the car was unlocked, so he released the parking brake and pushed the car back onto the edge of the road, and then reset the brake. before the motorist could return, a truck had sideswiped the car, damaging it. can the motorist recover against the landowner for the damage to his car?

The possible answers for this question are:

A. Yes, because the landowner had not posted any “No Trespassing” signs on his

property

B. Yes, because the motorist was privileged to leave his car there

C. No, because the motorist damaged the landowner’s property

D. No, because the landowner reasonably believed that he had a right to remove the

car from his property

The correct answer is:

B. Yes, because the motorist was privileged to leave his car there

Explanation:

In this case the motorist had the privilege of private necessity because he had an important reason to leave his car there in order to avoid an accident in the driveway. In this case his reason, was a more important way of prevention from a tragedy to occur, than the reason that the landowner could have supported, which was to prevent his property from any harmful situation related to the mention card.

answer: the only person who would no is god and you would no you would have to live with this scar for the rest of your life

explanation:

there is hope for you only if you ask forgiveness but if not you shall be guilty in the sight of god