Husband and Wife, walking on a country road, were frightened by a bull running loose on the road. They climbed over a fence to get onto the adjacent property, owned by Grower. After climbing over the fence, Husband and Wife damaged some of Grower's plants which were near the fence. The fence was posted with a large sign, "No Trespassing." Grower saw Husband and Wife and came toward them with his large watchdog on a long leash. The dog rushed at Wife. Grower had intended only to frighten Husband and Wife, but the leash broke, and before Grower could restrain the dog, the dog bit Wife."If Wife asserts a claim based on battery against Grower, will Wife prevail?
Yes, because Grower intended that the dog frighten Wife.  Yes, because the breaking of the leash establishes liability under res ipsa loquitur.  No, because Wife made an unauthorized entry on Grower's land.  No, because Grower did not intend to cause any harmful contact with Wife
Question: Husband and Wife, walking on a country road, were frightened by a bull running loose on the road. They climbed over a fence to get onto the adjacent property, owned by Grower. After climbing over the fence, Husband and Wife damaged some of Grower's plants which were near the fence. The fence was posted with a large sign, "No Trespassing." Grower saw Husband and Wife and came toward them with his large watchdog on a long leash. The dog rushed at Wife. Grower had intended only to frighten Husband and Wife, but the leash broke, and before Grower could restrain the dog, the dog bit Wife."If Wife asserts a claim based on battery against Grower, will Wife prevail?
A. Yes, because Grower intended that the dog frighten Wife. 
B. Yes, because the breaking of the leash establishes liability under res ipsa loquitur. 
C. No, because Wife made an unauthorized entry on Grower's land. 
D. No, because Grower did not intend to cause any harmful contact with Wife
Answer: