If A, a child, climbs on B's dog and pulls its ears with no harm done, is A liable for trespass to chattel?

In this scenario, A, the child, has climbed on B's dog and pulled its ears without causing any harm. Trespass to chattel involves the intentional interference with the possession of another's property, which can include animals. However, for a claim of trespass to chattel to be established, there generally needs to be an element of harm or damage resulting from the interference.

In this case, even though A's actions may have been inappropriate or bothersome to the dog, there was no actual harm done to the dog, which is a crucial factor. The determination of liability often hinges on whether the chattel (in this instance, the dog) suffered injury or damage as a result of the actions taken. Since no harm resulted, A would not be liable for trespass to chattel.

Other choices involve factors that do not establish liability, such as parental permission and the nature of A's actions being playful—these ideas could potentially mitigate liability but are not necessary to determine whether liability exists in this context. The central issue remains that without harm, A's actions do not meet the requirements for trespass to chattel.